Understanding the Australian Monsoon change during  the Last Glacial Maximum with a multi-model ensemble

Yan, Mi; Wang, Bin; Liu, Jian; Zhu, Axing; Ning, Liang; Cao, Jian

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-2037-2018

Articles | Volume 14, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-2037-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-2037-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 12

Research article

|

20 Dec 2018

Research article |

| 20 Dec 2018

Understanding the Australian Monsoon change during the Last Glacial Maximum with a multi-model ensemble

Mi Yan, Bin Wang, Jian Liu, Axing Zhu, Liang Ning, and Jian Cao

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Dec 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Apr 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Key papers for discussing the LGM climate missing', Mahyar Mohtadi, 18 Apr 2018
- AC3: 'Reply to Dr. Mohtadi's short comments', Mi Yan, 13 Aug 2018
RC1: 'Review of “Understanding the Australian monsoon change during the Last Glacial Maximum with multi-model ensemble” by Mi Yan et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 May 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Mi Yan, 13 Aug 2018
RC2: 'Review of "Understanding the Australian Monsoon change during the Last Glacial Maximum with multi-model ensemble" by Yan et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to RC2', Mi Yan, 13 Aug 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (07 Sep 2018) by Pascale Braconnot

AR by Mi Yan on behalf of the Authors (17 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Oct 2018) by Pascale Braconnot

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Oct 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (02 Nov 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of revised manuscript: “Understanding the Australian monsoon change during the Last Glacial Maximum with multi-model ensemble” by Yan et al.

General comments:
The authors have gone to some effort to address reviewer comments on the manuscript. The revised manuscript now includes a more satisfactory decomposition of the rainfall changes based on Huang et al. (2013) approach using changes in specific humidity and vertical motion. The paper also now addresses the extent to which models agree on changes as well as presenting multi-model mean results.
I therefore recommend publication subject to minor corrections outlined below. (Please note that the manuscript would benefit from further proof-reading as I have not provided an exhaustive list of corrections.)

Specific Comments:
1. Line 27: replace “multi-models’ experiments” with “multi-model experiments”
2. Line 34: delete “the” before northern Australia.
3. Line 130: while CMIP5 models have reasonable performance simulating the Australian monsoon precipitation, there are some biases, e.g. some models are much too wet or dry, or fail to simulate the reversal of winds. This is discussed in the Jourdain (2013) and Brown (2016) papers cited here. Please provide a more balanced assessment of model skill in simulating the Australian monsoon.
4. Line 168: Huang et al. (2013) argue that Tadv term can be neglected in the tropics to simplify the analysis. Is there a reason not to neglect this term?
5. Line 183-184: I am not sure what this sentence means. Are you arguing that the exact definition of the monsoon domain is not important for the results? Or that the analysis presented in the rest of the paper does not use this domain?
6. Line 226: “rest terms”? do you mean “the rest of the terms”?
7. Line 229 (Figure S3): Why do the terms not sum to give the total rainfall change? Also, note comment 4 above about neglecting the advection term.
8. Line 298: “Thermal effects” should be “thermodynamic effects” (here and in other places, e.g. lines 324, 414, 415).
9. Line 299: Replace “impact” with “magnitude” (i.e. quantitative comparison).
10. Line 309: Remove brackets?
11. Line 314: Replace “which is consists with our work in this point of view” with “which is also consistent with our work”.
12. Line 316: Remind the reader what is shown by the reconstruction of Liu et al. (2015).
13. Line 330-351: This paragraph is a bit confusing. Perhaps remove some of the detail, e.g. lines 338-346. Also it needs careful proof reading for both English and for the scientific content of the discussion. Several different points are being mixed together, and the last two sentences (347-351) seem out of place.
14. Line 331: insert “relative to the present day” after November.
15. Line 334: delete “of” before “the ocean”.
16. Line 365: replace “synthesis” with “hypothesis”.
17. Line 378: replace “sensitive” with “sensitivity”
18. Line 379: replace “to be” with “are”
19. Line 385: replace “wind filed” with “wind field”
20. Line 395: replace East Pacific… patter“ with “eastern Pacific El Nino-like pattern”.
21. Lines 414, 415: thermodynamic not thermal
22. Line 425, 431: sensitivity not sensitive
23. Line 440-441: I would argue that this will not “improve model performance”, but instead increase confidence in model results or understanding of model-data disagreement. Changes in the model physics, resolution etc. are required to improve model performance – a different matter entirely.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Nov 2018) by Pascale Braconnot

AR by Mi Yan on behalf of the Authors (21 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (06 Dec 2018) by Pascale Braconnot

AR by Mi Yan on behalf of the Authors (08 Dec 2018) Author's response Manuscript