Articles | Volume 6, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1443-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Seasonal Predictability of Vapor Pressure Deficit in the western United States
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 18 Nov 2025)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 03 Feb 2025)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-115', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2025
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-115', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 May 2025
- AC1: 'Author Response to Reviewers on egusphere-2025-115', Melissa Breeden, 30 Jun 2025
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
AR by Melissa Breeden on behalf of the Authors (01 Jul 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jul 2025) by Dariusz Baranowski
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 Jul 2025)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Aug 2025)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 Aug 2025) by Dariusz Baranowski
AR by Melissa Breeden on behalf of the Authors (22 Aug 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (08 Sep 2025) by Dariusz Baranowski
AR by Melissa Breeden on behalf of the Authors (10 Sep 2025)
General comments:
By using a linear inverse modeling framework for the fields Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD), Sea Surface Temperature (SST), and Soil Moisture (SM), the authors forecast seasonal VPD for the western United States. The study identifies Seasonal Forecasts of Opportunity (SFOs) and links them to ENSO. The manuscript is well-written, with no significant flaws in the logic. The figures are clearly presented, and the results support the conclusions. I recommend publication of this manuscript with minor revisions. I would like the authors to consider the following comments.
Major comments:
The use of soil moisture (SM) needs more justification. What would the results look like if SM were removed from the analysis? If there is a significant difference between the forecasts with and without SM, what exactly is SM capturing?
The discussion on ENSO using the leading optimal patterns was succinct, but would it be more valuable for a general audience to include a direct analysis linking SFOs to ENSO indices? For example, similar to Breeden et al. (2022) (their Figs. 6 & 7), authors could overlay the SFOs on the Niño 3.4 index or the Oceanic Niño Index.
Specific comments:
L68: Beverly et al (2022) is missing from the reference list.
L311: Mariotti et al (2020) is missing from the reference list.
L399-401: The first two sentences about winds in this paragraph seem out of place, especially since the next sentence mentions other variables, including winds. Consider revising for clarity and consistency to ensure a smoother flow of ideas.
References:
Breeden, M.L., Albers, J.R. and Hoell A.: Subseasonal precipitation forecasts of opportunity over southwest Asia. Weather and Climate Dynamics, 3, 1183–1197, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-1183-2022, 2022.