Dear authors,

Based on the three reviews of your paper, and your responses, my editorial decision is that your paper needs major revisions before it can be considered for publications in TC.

The reviewers point to a number of issues that need to be addressed in the revision, the major of which is the accuracy and appropriateness of the main dataset (CTMD) that the authors use as basis for their analysis (as well as of the additional CMA05 dataset). This is a comment made by all three reviewers and an issue I had raised also in my initial editor review (see that one).

I strongly recommend that the authors deal with this issue as thoroughly as possible, as this is the basis on which the paper is built. Reviewer 2 and 3 provide numerous, detailed comments and questions related to this that should be carefully addressed. I note that in response to Reviewer 3’s comment on this, the authors discuss the fact that it is difficult to find datasets to validate the CTMD product but will make an effort towards this. I commend that effort. However, this is only part of the answer the reviewer was seeking. What is needed in the first place, as was pointed at by all reviewers and my initial editor review, is a thorough explanation of how the CTMD is generated, to enable the editor and reviewers to understand how appropriate that dataset is.

I would also encourage the authors to clarify their response to reviewer 3’s point about the differences between CTMD and CMA05, and whether one dataset includes the other one.

The comments by all reviewers about the importance of the physical mechanisms leading to the observed warming are also very relevant and should be all addressed.

I look forward to receiving a revised manuscript.
All the best,

Francesca

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript and response to the reviewers. The paper is much improved, and I thank you for your efforts. I still see few problematic issues, however, and I am sending the manuscript to the reviewers again for a second review.

I feel that some of your statements in the responses would need some more evidence to back them, e.g .the reply to Reviewer 1 comment on the accuracy of the high resolution dataset is not entirely convincing; I am not sure I understand what you did in response to the Reviewer 2 comment on the two criteria you used to define EDW; and finally the English still needs major improvements (see e.g. line 224, 232; new lines 272-275; 312-315; etc).

In response to a comment by Reviewer 2 you state that “We plan to update a more high resolution data V2.0 (100m, 6-hourly) since the CTMD V1.0 that released in 2018.” Is this new dataset available now and did you use or will you be able to use it?

Thank you again for submitting your work to the TC.

All the best,

Francesca

Dear author,

I have now received three reviews of your revised paper, which all agree that the paper is much improved, and I concur with this, and thank you for the work you did to respond to the reviewers comments.

Two of the reviewers suggest minor revision, and one reviewer instead major revisions. I am in agreement with the major revision assessment here, as I would like you to carefully take into consideration the additional comments by referee 2 and 3. I am anticipating however that this final round of reviews will be smooth and I hope to be able to make a decision without sending the paper again to the reviewers.

Please consider carefully Referee 2 comments/suggestions (in report 3) on the trends shown in Table 5 and Figure 5; as well as Referee 3 comments on adding information about snow cover per elevation band, and adding an additional short results section on this.

I would also encourage the authors to consider Referee 2 suggestion on nomenclature.

These are all very good suggestions or constructive criticisms (such as those on the trends) that need to be addressed. If you are able to do so, I am confident the paper can be accepted swiftly, and I much look forward to your revised version!

All my best,

Francesca

Dear Lu Gao and co-authors,

I have now received two reviews of your revised manuscript. Both reviewers have reviewed also the previous version of your paper and know it well.

One reviewer, although still maintaining some criticisms of the datasets used, recommends that the paper is accepted, since these limitations are clearly presented in the manuscript.

The second reviewer, however, has concerns about the methods you used for the analysis of trends at different elevations, and two more major criticisms, and after carefully re-reading the revised manuscript, the rebuttal and the reviewer's comments I share those concerns. I therefore invite you to revise the paper once more, hopefully this one for the last time, and to address with great care and in a satisfactorily manner all the three main concerns of reviewer 2: i) the analysis of trends per elevation; ii) the reviewer's comment on Figure 5; and iii) their comments on Table 2.

As for i) above, the reviewer questions your approach of analysing many different sets of data and choosing only the significant ones as this devalues the significance test, and I agree with the reviewer here.

The reviewer provides clear suggestions on how to improve the paper regarding those three points, and I would strongly encourage you to address them convincingly, as this will be the last round of revisions.

I really hope that you will address those three remaining comments with great care, and look forward to receiving this last revision.

All the best,

Francesca

Dear Lu Gao and co-authors,

Thank you very much for your further extensive set of revisions. The paper has substantially improved, and I commend you for this further, careful analysis. This was important to dispel any doubt about the trends in warming you observed, and to enable readers to get an accurate understanding of the complexities of elevation dependent warming/cooling in your region of study. The new and revised tables 5 to 7 and the accompanying text are an important element of the paper now, showing clearly different trends above different elevations. They present a thorough analysis of the warming and cooling trends in the region and provide an interesting discussion on their complexity.

I am very happy to accept the paper for publication as it is, and thank you again for your efforts. I hope you will agree with me that the paper in its final shape is a much improved piece of work, and that the reviewers did a very constructive and careful job. I am sure this will be an important contribution to the current literature on elevation dependent warming.

All my best,
Francesca