A global water cycle reanalysis (2003&ndash;2012) merging satellite gravimetry and altimetry observations with a hydrological multi-model ensemble

van Dijk, A. I. J. M.; Renzullo, L. J.; Wada, Y.; Tregoning, P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2955-2014

Articles | Volume 18, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2955-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2955-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 8

Research article

|

12 Aug 2014

Research article |

| 12 Aug 2014

A global water cycle reanalysis (2003–2012) merging satellite gravimetry and altimetry observations with a hydrological multi-model ensemble

A. I. J. M. van Dijk, L. J. Renzullo, Y. Wada, and P. Tregoning

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Aug 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Dec 2013)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C7878: 'Referee Comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2014
- AC C8117: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Albert van Dijk, 06 Mar 2014
RC C7907: 'Review of Van Dijk et al. (2014). Re-analysis of water cycle.', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2014
- AC C8124: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Albert van Dijk, 06 Mar 2014

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (13 Apr 2014) by Albrecht Weerts

Dear Authors

First apologies on my side for the slow handling of your paper.
Second, I recommend major revisions based on the comments provided by the reviewers.

Both reviewers find your paper interesting and valuable and provided valuable comments and remarks. However, they also note that the paper is full of assumptions that have an (unknown)influence on the results, which make it impossible for readers to judge the conclusions/results. And like one of the reviewers I appreciated the effort you took in bringing all this data together for this analysis, but to increase scientific quality of the paper I really think you need to acknowledge, and where it is possible analyse and describe the effect of these choices in the results and discussion section but also in the conclusions/abstract section in a better way.

Another important point noted by the reviewers is that the used method is not always easy to follow, again I understand that you cannot repeat the whole literature but please try to improve where possible. As an example it is difficult to understand what the introduced observation model in eq 5 really is (not explained).

Regarding the use of the word 'reconciling' as non native speaker I tend to agree with the reviewer and given that fact that it might lead to some confusion I suggest to change it. Maybe a 'A global water cycle reanalysis (2003-2012): combining/merging satellite gravimetry and altimetry observations with a hydrological model ensemble' could be an option but I leave it to the authors to decide.

Of course I expect the authors to handle all other mayor and minor comments & suggestions given by the reviewers

With kind regards,

Albrecht Weerts

Hide

AR by Svenja Lange on behalf of the Authors (16 May 2014) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 May 2014) by Albrecht Weerts

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Jun 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised paper reads well, and I'm happy with most of the responses to my earlier comments. I still have many of the same concerns over the reliability of the overall results and conclusions, given the number of corrections, scale factors, and adjustments that are made as part of the analysis. However, I think the authors have done a good job of making the details of their analysis clear, including discussions around their error analysis and assumptions. This degree of transparency will at least allow the readers to know what went into the analysis, so that they can draw their own conclusions. I only have two "major" items that I would ask the authors to change, with the other items being optional.

1) lns 654 & 664: I still feel strongly that the -101 Gt/yr the authors add to their glacier mass change estimate should not be referred to in the text as a "revised estimate". It's fine to mention the discrepency with the Gardner et al results (which is done), and to even discuss the case in which the -101 Gt/yr is assumed misappropriated, but to talk about it as a "revised estimate" is misleading in my opinion, since the results did not come out of the analysis directly. Likewise for the subsequent revision of the sub-surface storage estimate.

2) When I summed the values of the reported trends from Table 5, I got -602 Gt/yr, not -549 Gt/yr. Please correct.

Other items which the authors may wish to consider are:

1) ln 16: change "reconcile" to merges, to be consistent with the title and my earlier comment regarding the interpretation of the word reconcile. Also change throughout document.

2) ln 130: Can you provide a general range of values for this scale factor, so the readers have an idea of how large it is?

3) ln 180: The discussion of the impoundment data needs some introduction/transition sentence(s). Also, the total trend amount of impounded water (Gt/yr or km/yr) over the study period should also be listed.

4) ln 230: This sentence is unclear to me. How can a model-estimated change be more reliable than the actual storage change?

5) ln 235: notation inconsistent for sigmas in eq 2 and ln 235

6) ln 421: believe this should be "GRGS"

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (15 Jun 2014) by Albrecht Weerts

AR by Albert van Dijk on behalf of the Authors (18 Jun 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Jun 2014) by Albrecht Weerts