PCLM-D-25-00331

High-resolution regional climate modeling over Myanmar using WRF: historical validation and future projections under different shared socioeconomic pathways

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Messmer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

A major concern raised by two reviewers was the choice of WRF version and the uncertainties associated with different model configurations. Please check if you are able to conduct extra sets of sensitivity tests.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jingyu Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

2. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

3. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility.

Potential Copyright Issues: Fig1, Fig 4, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 7, Fig S3, Fig S4 please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their original scientific research, which represents a strong scientific methodology and strong thinking.

My observations on the work are as follows:

Introduction

I find it too long and contains some duplicate details about Myanmar's geography. Please shorten it.

When presenting previous studies, you did not clarify what these previous studies lack and what makes your scientific research unique, linking these gaps to the primary motivation for the research.

Methodology

Why did you choose WRF v3.8.1, an older version from 2016, as newer versions contain better physics processors? Please justify your use of this version.

Physical settings: The rationale for their use was not mentioned. Why are they most appropriate for your study area?

Choosing the MPI-ESM1-2-HR global climate model as the sole source limits the generalizability of the results. It would have been preferable to use more than one model to generalize the results, especially since the study area is highly sensitive to seasonal variations.

Graphical comparisons (monthly sums, biases) are provided, but there is no mention of clear quantitative metrics such as RMSE, MAE, BIAS, or correlation indices (R).

Discussion

Domain sensitivity was performed visually, not statistically.

The analysis also did not discuss in detail the effect of domain size on the water balance or moisture fluxes at the boundaries.

Why were anomaly maps not studied to explain the climate cycle?

Some results require clarification, such as the 40-60% increase in rainfall in arid regions under SSP5-8.5, which is very high.

Conclusions

There are duplications. Explain what is new and what is the scientific contribution.

Discuss the study's limitations.

Reviewer #2: Overview and general recommendation:

In their manuscript “High-resolution regional climate modeling over Myanmar using WRF: historical validation and future projections under different shared socioeconomic pathways”, authors used the WRF model to simulate three climate scenarios over Myanmar. Changes in temperature and precipitation were predicted and discussed. The topic of this study is of relevance and general interest to the readers of the journal. This is generally a well-written manuscript with a few major and minor issues to be addressed, which are listed in details below. I recommend a minor revision and would be happy to review the revision.

Major issues:

1. As the authors stated in the introduction, the precipitation in Myanmar is heterogeneous and monsoonal. There are no high-resolution (≤5km) simulations available. Are there any sensitivity tests performed on your choice of domain size, nesting ratios, and physical parameterizations? It appears to me that only the domain size is thoroughly discussed. Moreover, in Line 93-95, authors cited their own works, which contain sensitivity tests for East Africa (Kenya) and Peru. Yet those two regions are climatologically very different from Myanmar. For the parameterization options listed in Line 95-102, what are your selection criteria of them over alternatives? What are the assumptions and caveats of each selection, and are they in agreement with or drastically contrasting existing literature that also focus on WRF modeling in Southeastern Asia or nearby countries? Even without the location specific sensitivity tests, which could take a huge amount of effort and time, the authors are recommended to utilize their expertise to provide a more comprehensive discussion on the parameterization options, instead of arbitrarily listing them as they are.

2. Line 217-221, the authors encountered the issue that “precipitation along the west coast of Myanmar is underestimated compared to observational datasets”, which “seems to be a common problem in global and regional climate models”. In response, the authors “look into differences in circulation to identify potential misrepresentations of atmospheric circulation and moisture transport in that region.” However, the subsequent section “Atmospheric circulation under present climate” is brief and mostly qualitative. I am unable to identify any actions that the authors took to hedge the known underestimation, nor could I figure out how the level of mismatch could be corrected or accounted for from a quantitative standpoint. It appears to be a section of explanation to the encountered underestimation or model deficiency for the specific area. If that is the case, there is no need for a standalone section. Rather, extra interpretation on the uncertainty of predicted outcomes on the western Myanmar from different climate scenarios should be added to the current findings.

3. Line 305-306, I am perplexed about the use of “It must be noted that… (not shown)”. If something worth a note that it should better be shown either in the manuscript or in the SI.

Minor issues:

1. Line 13-15, please add sources to the statements of “low economic power” and “the risks of damage and loss due to extreme weather and climate events have further been exacerbated by the ongoing military coup rendering the country”, or consider removing them because they are not directly related to the modeling methods and scientific findings of this manuscript.

2. In Figures 1A and 1B, “z” in “zone” should be capitalized for consistency with the figure titles and descriptions between Line 106-113. In Figure 1C, font for the weather stations should be enlarged (at least to that used in Figure 1A). They are currently not really readable.

3. In Figure 2, the same legend annotation textbox was repeated 6 times in each sub-figures. They could be combined to just one for simplicity but with a larger font size. The y-axis for Figures 2A-2C could be unified and combined. They are currently presented in different ranges that are not helpful for comparison. Same thing for the y-axis of Figures 2D-2F. What the boxes and whiskers represent should be added to the figure description.

4. In Figure 3, the font size of the legend annotation textbox is much better and readable. However, they also obscured a fraction of data (e.g. the gray shading). I suggest you adjust the size of the figure or the ranges of the y-axis, as well as the position of the legend annotation textbox to ensure a more professional visualization. Information of the boxes and whiskers should be added to the figure description.

5. Same issue as the above two for Figures S1 and S2. Please revise accordingly.

Other comment: the PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. The Zenodo link provided by the authors in the Data Availability Statement could not be found (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17113911). Please verify.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure Resubmissions:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

High-resolution regional climate modeling over Myanmar using WRF: historical validation and future projections under different shared socioeconomic pathways

PCLM-D-25-00331R1

Dear Dr. Messmer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'High-resolution regional climate modeling over Myanmar using WRF: historical validation and future projections under different shared socioeconomic pathways' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Jingyu Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I believe the authors have incorporated most of the feedback I provided, and the work is now acceptable.

Reviewer #2: All my comments were addressed and the revised manuscript is good to be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********