Three Dimensional Radiative Effects in Passive Millimeter/Sub-Millimeter All-sky Observations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is part of a series of articles about the scattering of microwaves in clouds. The authors use a previously developed simulation method called Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Simulator. I assume that this simulator works properly (referred to in the articles indicated by the authors). However, I believe that the report on the analyzes carried out is too extensive and requires refinement. It seems to me that the authors try too hard to present with their detailed knowledge, and they do not try enough for the reader to make it easy to perceive the content contained in paper. Subsection titles cannot be replaced with acronyms. The axes on the charts should have full descriptions (please note that before reading the paper strictly, the reader may want to see what interesting authors communicate using charts and captions). The last sentence in the abstract sounds like it would be the last sentence in the last section (Conclusions). When writing Conclusions, it is important to ensure that the reader is encouraged to read the paper if they first look at the Conclusions (this is what most readers do). Therefore, symbols and abbreviations should not be rather used in conclusions.
Maybe try not to use the letter K to describe a unit other than the temperature in absolute scale.
I would add that MC simulations would give the most reliable results - I think it would be easy to apply if the authors know the calculated from the Mie solution the scattering coefficient, angular scattering distribution, and absorption coefficient of the cloud components.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript exposes the 3D effects that are omitted by 1D radiative analyses at mm and sub-mm wavelengths by utilizing comparison of simulations over ocean. Overall, it is a convincing and robust study that provides some good, quantitative touchstones for future studies to utilize to describe the expected magnitude of these effects. In particular, I would praise the thorough discussion that preempted most of the issues I had noted while reading the rest of the manuscript.
I would encourage the authors to remove the bullet-point format (which is used in a few places throughout the manuscript) where possible, especially in the conclusions. Even replacing the bullet points with a numbered list of the key findings would be an improvement.
There are some repeated linguistic mistakes throughout the manuscript, and while I have tried to catch all of the instances in my list below, I would encourage the authors to check for further instances that I may have missed. In particular, instances of "in case of", or similar, instead of "in the case of"; "found larger", or similar, instead of "found to be larger"; and the use of the word "whereby", which is appropriate in some instances, but not in others.
I would also mention that the line numbers were so small in the draft copy I received as to be almost illegible. However, this may not be the authors' fault at all. I just thought I would mention it since it made the list of corrections more laborious to make.
Overall, this study is well-written, and addresses an important issue in remote sensing in a quantitative apples to apples comparison. The introduction is thorough, and justifies the study effectively, and the methods are clear and appropriately detailed. The figures are of a high quality.
Below is a list of minor corrections and suggestions. If I was unsure if a correction is needed, according to the authors' intended meaning, I indicate as such with a question mark.
Line 69: Could consider “focused” instead of “centered”.
Line 70: “with respect” to “in respect”
Line 161: “while the rest channels” to “while the rest of the channels”?
Line 165: “frequencies” to “frequencies of”
Line 182: “in vertically” to “is vertically”
Line 182: “rest channels” to “rest of the channels”?
Line 215: “temperatures lower” to “temperatures lower than”
Line 215: “at height” to “at heights”
Line 246: “in-situ” to “in situ”
Line 256: “meeting” to “meets”
Line 297: The section of the sentence “whereby ice cloud retrievals are or going to be based on in order to draw conclusions” seems to need rephrasing.
Line 317: “pensil” to “pencil”
Line 317: “accounting horizontal” to “accounting for horizontal”
Line 328: “in absence” to “in the absence”
Line 346: “at least of an order of” to “at least by an order of”
Line 356: “overall (respectively), over all conditions” may need rephrasing.
Line 357: “in case” to “in the case”
Line 357: “whereby” to “wherein”?
Line 366: “one can” to “can one”
Line 371: “Sole” to “Solely”
Line 403: “found larger” to “found to be larger”
Line 404: “agreement to” to “agreement with”
Line 417: “Still most” to “Still, most”
Line 422: “lead” to “led”
Line 423: “found larger” to “found to be larger”
Line 427: “in case” to “in the case”
Line 431: “insight on” to “insight into”
Line 436: “leading a mean” to “leading to a mean”
Line 440: “One the contrary” to “On the contrary”
Line 454: “In a word” to “In other words”
Line 457: “However, by conducting” to “However, conducting”
Line 458: “lead” to “led” or “leads” (check for tense consistency throughout).
Line 465: “found larger” to “found to be larger”
Line 480: “Considering, the low” to “Considering the low”
Line 482: “Exception posses” to “An exception is posed by”
Line 483: “in case” to “in the case”
Line 485: “found at histograms” to “found in historgrams”
Line 498: “This, in addition” to “From this, in addition”
Line 520: “with HC-avg” to “with the HC-avg”
Line 531: “when it comes for” to “when it comes from”
Line 542: “words, multiple scattering” to “words, the multiple scattering”
Line 555: “with large gradient” to “with a large gradient”
Line 567: “consequently, the number” to consequently, so is the number”
Line 567: “in case of” to “in the case of”
Line 568: “found slightly larger” to “found to be slightly larger”
Line 571: “those instrument” to “those instruments”
Line 580: “diminish” to “diminishes”
Line 603: “in case of” to “in the case of”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is written satisfactorily. The woking method is well chosen and the results are well presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please find my comments in the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The corrections that the authors introduced to the manuscript have significantly improved its readability. Congratulations to the authors of the well-written paper.
