Answers to the reviewer’s comments and recommendations
We are very thankful to the reviewer for the valuable recommendations. We generally agree
with them and we tried to follow them. Our detail response is typed just into the following
text in italics.
Reviewer's comments:
Reviewer #1: The paper brings interesting results related to fluctuations of daily maximum
and minimum temperatures including DTR in the Baltic area and it is worthy to be published
in TAC. I recommend improve paper in directions mentioned in detail below.
General comments:
1) Introduction
Please skip the 2nd and 3rd paragraph on page 3 - such details are not necessary here and all
papers are already cited in the previous paragraph. Please consider if so detail description of
results achieved up to now on page 4 (paragraphs 2-6) has to be in so detail form - these
details I would rather see in discussion of your results. The last paragraph on this page is also,
in my opinion, more a question for discussion of results than the introductory part.
We shortened the Introduction significantly. We deleted the paragraphs 2-4 on page 3. We
shortened much the paragraphs 2-4 on page 4. A part of this information is included into
Discussion. We remained the paragraphs 5-6 as they describe previous studies in the Baltic
countries.
2) Data and methods
- from which criteria follows the distribution of stations into maritime and continental?
Maritime stations are located in the coastal zone. The character of fluctuations of daily
maximum and minimum temperature and DTR in the coastal zone and in the hinterland is
completely different as can be seen on Figures 2-3. Therefore we separated the stations into
two groups. Coastal zone is defined as 5 km from the coastline. Of course, this limit is
subjectively determined following the belt of the highest temperature gradient. Mostly, it is
not difficult to choose if a station belongs to the group of maritime or continental stations. We
had problems only with three stations located not far from the coastline. After discussions we
classified Rucava as a maritime station, and Šilute and Riga as continental ones. We
improved the text in the section of data and methods.
- 3rd paragraph of this section: did you make any testing of relative homogeneity? the
problem is that not only classic relocation of stations between two places may be reason of
inhomogeneity but also much smaller changes on the station proper (such as moving for
several meters, building activity in surroundings, types of measurements - e.g. standard x
automatic measurements, type of screen). Moreover, I estimate that before obtaining
independency, stations were part of the meteorological network of the USSR where relatively
often changes in instructions for observations were going on. Improvement of this part of the
paper is necessary.
The reviewer is right in claiming that not only stations relocation plays an important role in
data homogeneity. But unfortunately not all changes were documented (e.g. very small
relocation inside the station territory) or can be evaluated (related with slow building
activity). All significant documented changes were investigated using the Student’s t-test. On
the other hand, there were no significant changes in the methodology of daily maximum and
minimum temperature measurements and instruments during the investigation period. The
max or min thermometer height, shield and thermometer type didn’t change at all almost until
the end of investigated period. In Estonia, automatic weather stations were established since
September 2003, in Lithuania only in 2010 (in Latvia). Parallel measurements with classical
thermometers and automatic weather stations made by the Estonian Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute revealed no differences in temperature records. So there are no
reasons to suspect significant impact of mentioned factors on minimum or maximum
temperature. We improved the text correspondingly.
3) Spatial and temporal variability
It seems to me that this part of the paper is too detailed and may be of smaller interest for
international community that the following Section 4. I.e., I have generally feeling that you
concentrate more on explanation of territorial difference that trends obtained.
We agree with the reviewer that this section is too long and detailed. We shortened it by
deleting the paragraph 3 and Fig 5. We shortened also some other paragraphs in this section.
But we don’t agree with the reviewer in that sense that the factors determining territorial
differences in daily maximum and minimum temperature and DTR in the Baltic countries may
be of smaller interest. We modelled them using quite unique technique of machine learning to
detect detail relationships between local landscape variables and extreme temperature. We
assume that these general regularities of spatial distribution are of wider importance and
appear also in other regions.
4) Despite you presenting analysis for some areas (Estonia-maritime, Estonia-continental etc.)
I would recommend calculate and present also results for mean series calculated all over the
stations used. I give you for consideration also separate means for maritime and continental
stations instead to split it on those in every country. Results of such analysis I would see as
the main message of the article.
We thank the reviewer for his useful recommendation. We really did not know how to
generalise the results of the trend analysis in the best way. We provided trend values only for
all stations, maritime and continental station in Tables 5-7 not dividing them between
countries. We revised the text appropriately.
5) Discussion and conclusions
You are relating changes in DTR more geographical factors (latitude, the Baltic see,
elevation). I would rather see relation and explanation with respect to other meteorological
factors which influence maximum and minimum temperatures as well as DTR significantly
(e.g. circulation patterns, cloudiness, snow cover) - are changes in max, min, DTR trends
consistent with trends observed in them, e.g. with cloudiness? What about intensification of
the UHI if stations are located in larger towns - any examples? I recommend to present
discussion and conclusions in separate sections.
We related our results with changes in cloudiness, atmospheric circulation and snow cover in
the section of discussion. We did not use the stations in the larger towns and thus the
intensification of UHI has not influenced on the results of this study. Stations in Vilnius,
Kaunas, Riga, Daugavpils and Tartu are located outside of the urban areas. We separated the
sections of discussion and conclusions.
Smaller comments:
(i) Abstract: Please skip the sentence "Similarity-based ... " - I do not see this so important.
Please complete sentences about "increases/decreases/highest" trends if those are statistically
significant or not.
The sentence was omitted. We added the phrase “statistically significant”. Generally, we
assume that trends are statistically significant. Otherwise there is no trend.
(ii) I recommend change in the title as: "Fluctuations (or Variability) in daily minimum ..."
Please give at the end of the title: "in the 1951-2010 period."
We changed the title as recommended.
(iii) Unify quotations in the text: sometimes you have comma, prevailingly not. See e.g.
paragraph 5 in Introduction: Karl et al. 1993 but Vose et al., 2005.
We corrected quotations.
(iv) Introduction, 6th paragraph: maybe be add Brázdil et al., IJC, 2009 from the more recent
papers.
We added the reference to this article. Thank you.
(v) Page 5, line 20: ... as a difference between daily maximum and ...
We corrected.
(vi) Page 5, line 50: ... Mann-Kendall (MK) test.
We added (MK).
(vii) Page 6, line 1: what is it all-cover mapping?
All-cover mapping is a specific term that is not needed to define here. We omitted “allcover”.
(viii) Page 6, line 13: detaildness?
We replaced “level of detailedness” with “amount of details”
(ix) Page 7, line 7: ... to the Baltic proper ...
We did not change because the Baltic Proper is the name of the central part of the Baltic Sea
widely used in oceanography.
(x) Page 8, line 13-14: Is this not oppositely? DTR is related to the altitude of stations.
Of course. The sentence is corrected.
(xi) Please consider once again presentation of Table 4. Is "ampl" the same as DTR? Why is
not here also Jan_ampl, Jul_ampl, Ann_min and Ann_max to have it more consistent? Is it
possible to simplify identification of variables?
Ampl is the same as DTR. We changed them in Table 4. Jul_ampl was presented in Table 4.
Ann_min is more or less the same as Jan_min, and ann_max the same as Jul_max. Therefore
we suggest that they will give more or less similar results and will not add much more
information. The modelling of the spatial patterns of daily maximum and minimum
temperatures and DTR using Constud is not the central focus in this study because we don’t
want to enhance this part.
(xii) I do not understand the last sentence in the caption of Fig. 2. I miss period for which it is
done.
This sentence is omitted. The period 1951-2010 is added.
(xiii) Fig. 2 - for what areas or stations? period?
The area (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) and the period 1951-2010 are added into the figure
caption.
(xiv) Fig. 5 - I recommend to skip it, values of r in the text are enough for understanding of
these relationships.
The figure is omitted. The values of r are added into the text.
(xv) Please reconsider completing of Figs. 6, 9 and 11 by the mean values for the whole area
studied - see General comments, point 4.
We did as recommended. These figures present monthly trend values for time series averaged
by all the maritime and continental stations.
(xvi) Please reconsider Figs. 7, 8 and 10: instead of individual stations I would rather see
fluctuations in series of the areal means - if possible max, min and DTR together (e.g. in
anomalies from any reference period).
We made new figures where areal mean time series are presented. The aim of these figures is
to demonstrate the ranges of inter-annual temperature variability, trends and a high spatial
correlation of the temperature series.