|The manuscript has improved a lot in the review process. Nevertheless, there are some important questions than remain without solution and I cannot recommend its publication in its current form. One major point is that the authors do not accept the lack of critical analysis in the in the manuscript suggested by RC2 and SC1. In my opinion, to infer the guidelines proposed at the end of the manuscript by the previous sections continues to be impossible. |
The authors are excluding of the review some indexing methods and documentary sources (see paragraph 197-203 in the manuscript, page 12 of the reply and comments below). For this reason, it is necessary to clarify on which documentary sources and type of reconstructions is focused the review. In the pag.12 of the reply letter the authors said that the narrative sources are the key focus “Space precludes a full coverage of these and comparable indices relating to Europe, so we will emphasise that our key focus is on narrative sources”. In this case I suggest including this concept clearly in the title and abstract. Moreover a clear definition of “narrative source” in the introduction is required, and modifies the manuscript according with this definition. I understand that not all the cited sources in the introduction can be considered narrative sources “Information sources include, but are not limited to, annals, chronicles, inscriptions, letters, diaries/journals (including weather diaries), newspapers, financial, legal and administrative documents, ships’ logbooks, literature, poems, songs, paintings and pictographic and epigraphic records” and many indices cited in the text are based on both narrative and no narrative sources.
I have the feeling that the authors want to focus the manuscript in situations in which the researcher has many different documentary sources with different origins and with highly variable climate information. In this situation, probably the categorized index +X/-X is a good option. If this is the idea, this must be crystal clear in the manuscript, starting by the title because currently is to general. In this case probably has no sense to include in the review the works focused on weather diaries, logbooks, phenology or chapter acts among others, because in these cases researchers use only one type of documentary sources with very specific climate information. Another option would be to divide the review in works that use many different documentary sources with high variable climate information to reconstruct one series and the works that use only one kind of documentary source with specific climate information.
In my opinion this paragraph:
line 197-203: Index series based on historical records of rogation ceremonies – closely linked to precipitation (or a lack thereof) – warrant separate discussion. This source type is particularly valuable for western Mediterranean regions (e.g. Álvarez Vázquez, 1986; Martín-Vide and Vallvé, 1995; Barriendos, 1997; Piervitali and Colacino, 2001; Domínguez-Castro et al., 2008; Barriendos, 2010; Domínguez-Castro et al., 2010; Garnier, 2010; Domínguez-Castro et al., 2012b; Fragoso et al., 2018; Tejedor et al., 2018; Gil-Guirado et al., 2019; Bravo-Paredes et al., 2020). However, as most studies base their indices on the type or cost of ceremonies – or the space within individual documents devoted to describing each ceremony – rather than a meteorological entity, we do not go into further detail.
has some conceptual errors and it is incorrect. The articles cited only have in common that they use rogation as a climate proxy. Some articles generate a precipitation index using pro pluvia and pro serenitate rogations i.e. Álvarez Vázquez, 1986; Martín-Vide and Vallvé, 1995; Barriendos, 1997; Barriendo 2010. Other as Fragoso et al. (2018) work with different climate information, not only with rogation and generate a monthly precipitation index (-1, 0, +1) and a drought record. Gil-Guirado et al. (2019) provides a drought index mainly based in pro pluvia ceremonies and an extreme rainfall index based in some pro serenitate rogations and much other climate information. Bravo-Paredes et al. (2019) analyse the use of pro pluvial rogations in Extremadura as winter NAO proxy. Finally, Piervitali and Colacino (2001), Domínguez-Castro et al. (2008, 2010, 2012b), Garnier (2010) and Tejedor et al. (2018) produce drought index from pro pluvia ceremonies information with different methodologies of indexation. For this reason, in my opinion some articles are correctly cited in section 2.3 but others have no sense in there and must be cited in section 2.5. In addition probably is better to cite the final version of Tejedor et al., 2018/19 accepted in climate of the past (Clim. Past, 15, 1647–1664, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1647-2019) instead the Climate of the Past Discussion version.
As I am mentioning, all these works provide indices of “meteorological entity” i.e. precipitation, drought or extreme rainfall events. Moreover some of these works provide original indexation methods far from the (–X,+X) continually cited in this review. In my opinion these original methodologies deserve to be commented and analysed in this review. Dominguez-Castro et al (2008) and Gil-Girado et al (2016) are methodological works, in which different indexing methods are compared. In my opinion this kind of works are necessary to know which methodologies of indexation are better, and not only try to accept and repeat the legacy of previous studies as the authors recommend in the point 4 of the guidelines.