|The current paper focuses on the wet-cold compound events under climate change in Greece. The authors have shown improvement in terms of the text and figures after revision of the last manuscript. However, the current study still has considerate flaws, and major concern on the fidelity of the conclusion. Thus, further revision and enhanced study is needed before this study can be considered for publication. I thus give major revision at this point.|
1. It would be good if the authors could draw the topography elevation along with the stations in the Figure 1 to depict the terrain variability, which appears to be a unique factor in the regions studied and concerns the conclusions. This should be easily retrieved by HGT data in ERA or WRF_5.
2. Creativity issue. The second paragraph in the introduction should add more studies of wet-compound regions over the world, and extensively discuss what they did and how this study is different from the rest. After the discussion, it is commonly followed by a “However,….” to separate the current studies from the rest. I still don’t see this kind of discussion in the text, which does not distinguish the current study from the rest.
In terms of regional extreme studies, how would you define the Greece’s special traits, and how this would differ it from other hot research regions with complex terrain such as the Himalayas (extreme high elevation interacting with summer monsoon), Andes mountain (extreme high elevation separating the ocean and land), etc (https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-2/). Secondly, how this unique trait contributes to the future change of wet-cold compound events under the climate change.
3. Fidelity issue. For the WRF_5 data as shown in the following studies have shown a considerate underestimate in temperature and considerate overestimate in rainfall over most of the years.
Politi, N., Vlachogiannis, D., Sfetsos, A. et al. High-resolution dynamical downscaling of ERA-Interim temperature and precipitation using WRF model for Greece. Clim Dyn 57, 799–825 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05741-9
N. Politi, P.T. Nastos, A. Sfetsos, D. Vlachogiannis, N.R. Dalezios, Evaluation of the AWR-WRF model configuration at high resolution over the domain of Greece, Atmospheric Research, 208, 2018, Pages 229-245, ISSN 0169-8095, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.10.019.
The conclusion the current studies made is mostly based on the mountainous regions,
which for models is commonly to be places of considerable excessive cooler temperature and more rainfall bias. This leads to the still questionable fidelity in the study, as the authors only used sparse observations (for Pindus mountain regions in the northern Greece, maybe only 2 stations) for validation. I understand that observation is commonly sparse in the mountain regions, so one option I recommended is GSOD https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/daily/?layers=0001, it is puzzling for the response since I found 50 stations observations around Greece, with some over the Pindus ranges, which may supplement the HNMS observations the authors used. Also, the cross-validation of several reanalysis used in this study would give an idea of the uncertain range of the model’s simulation ability. Note that we shall not overstate the model’s ability to project the future without validating and constraining its ability by observation, especially in the complex terrain regions. And this should have a clear discussion in the conclusion part as how potential bias may affect the conclusions drawn in this study.
4. Enhanced analysis is needed. It is not enough just to make simple comparison of the model with “observation” and give a projection without tell readers why. While it is easy to attribute the difference between present and future to climate change, the authors did not mention in what mechanism that is responsible. Whether it’s thermodynamic (changes in temperature or rainfall) or thermodynamic (changes in circulation), there should be a mechanism difference for the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 relative to the historical simulations that is responsible for the change in wet-cold compound events. And this should be further analyzed using the simulation data.
1. Figure 8 Please use 1-6 rather than the a1-3 and b1-3, this does not conform to each other, and would easily puzzle the readers.
2. The format between the figures are also not consistent, for instance, Figure 10 use (a)(b)(c), while Figure 12, 13 uses A, B.
3. Line 305 Conclusion add number.
4. Line 317-319, the conclusion is too strong, and I would recommend more conservative discussion rather than conclusions without support of more fundamental facts, especially in the complex terrain region.