Brierley, CM

Cuthbert, MO

Opie, S

Shamsudduha, M

Taylor, RG

English

UCL Discovery

ESDDInteractivecommentPrinter-friendly versionDiscussion paperEarth Syst. Dynam. Discuss.,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-83-AC1, 2020© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.Interactive comment on “Climate-groundwaterdynamics inferred from GRACE and the role ofhydraulic memory” by Simon Opie et al.Simon Opie et al.simon.opie.18@ucl.ac.ukReceived and published: 9 March 2020Referee 1 Comments – Authors’ responses:This is an interesting study that I suspect will be of wide interest to ESD readers. Thepremise for the research is straightforward and clearly articulated, with a generallywell-reasoned account of methods and presentation of findings. I have some relativelyminor points to consider for a redrafted version of this manuscript, as follows:R1 : We appreciate the positive comments regarding the overall manuscript and theconstructive suggestions to improve the manuscript. Responses to individual com-ments are given below.There are quite a large number of acronyms used in the manuscript. Not all of theseC1ESDDInteractivecommentPrinter-friendly versionDiscussion paperseem essential, and in places they detract from the overall readability. Some are rarelyused (e.g. COV, PCC), others are arguably not really necessary (PCP for precipitation).I recommend the authors rethink and reduce the number of acronyms accordingly.R2 : We will seek to reduce the number of acronyms in the final manuscript includingsome of the suggested that are rarely used. Use of PCP is expected to remain as weapply this in the context of identifying both PCP and PCPA (anomalies) and considerthese to be clear, sensible abbreviations.Inconsistent capitalisation of nouns. Some terms that are converted to acronyms arenot capitalised (e.g. global hydrological models, GHMs – p2, line 52), whereas othersare (Groundwater Storage, ∆GWS).R3 : This comment is helpful in identifying necessary corrections that we will make inthe course of the review of acronyms.P2, line 61-62. Presumably this increase of 15%/decade is a global average?R4 : We will amend to clarify the text as ‘. . .rapid escalation in global groundwaterextraction at an average of ∼15% per decade. . .’P7, lines 168 and 189. It is potentially somewhat misleading to provide coefficient ofvariation statistics for sample sizes of 3 and 4. The mean, standard deviation (and thusthe coefficient of variation too) are not particularly informative descriptors of centraltendency or distribution of samples that are this small.R5 : We acknowledge that the population (not sample) size is small for the use of co-efficient of variation. We nevertheless consider this parameter has merit in explainingdivergence among the respective datasets; we propose to include a phrase acknowl-edging the small population sizes.P7, line 192. Improper use of the term “significant” when discussing the magnitudeof statistical terms. From my reading of this sentence, “substantial” would be a moreappropriate descriptor.C2ESDDInteractivecommentPrinter-friendly versionDiscussion paperR6 : We agree and will amend to read ‘substantial’ and check all other uses of theword, ‘significant’ (3 instances), are appropriate.Figure 3. The different y-axis scales, and scaling of the data are noted in the caption,but this twin approach to scaling, plus the relatively small size of the panes and faintaxis labels makes it somewhat difficult to compare scales of variability between thedifferent aquifers.R7 : We appreciate this comment and will look at ways to improve the clarity of whatis being expressed in Figure 3 and improve axis labels. As the primary purpose of thefigure is to illustrate correlation between change in GWS and precipitation anomaly forindividual systems, we have scaled the data to make these correlations clear. Furtherinformation on the variability between aquifers is given in the final two columns of Table1.P16, line 400. The reference for this statement is slightly misleading. It could be readthat Zwiers and Von Storch (1995) found robust statistical significance, but actually Ithink the authors mean that robust statistical significance was found using the methodsdescribed by Zwiers and Von Storch.R8 : We agree with that this clarification is necessary and will amend to state: ‘whentested using the methods described by Zwiers and Von Storch (ref.)’Interactive comment on Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-83,2020.C3

Interactive comment on "Climate-groundwater dynamics inferred from GRACE and the role of hydraulic memory" by Simon Opie et al

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10115972/3/Opie_esd-2019-83-AC1.pdf

Interactive comment on "Climate-groundwater dynamics inferred from GRACE and the role of hydraulic memory" by Simon Opie et al

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery