Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Jin Xu 1,2,
  • Liren Xu 3,* and
  • Lei Yin 1,2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Tianning Su Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The authors used a cloud-resolved numerical model to simulate a heavy precipitation case on 19–20 July 2021 that occurred in Zhengzhou, a city located at Henan Province in China. Research of cold dry air intrusion to warm and wet airflows will help to understand the formation mechanism of the middle convective system and the high precipitation efficiency that occurred in this rainstorm. In this paper, the authors examined the moisture sources and latent heat sources of this extreme hourly rainfall event. It was found that cold dry intrusion is not only the key factor of MCS formation but also the most contributor to high precipitation efficiency. As typical heavy rainfall occurred in the semi-arid regions, the unique characteristics of cloud microphysics and precipitation were revealed by the simulated experiments of the generalized potential temperature. Thus, it contributed to understanding the rainstorm formation mechanism and its microphysics characteristics that occurred in semi-arid regions and the findings are interesting. However, it still exists a few questions that need to be addressed in the manuscript. Therefore, I believe a minor revision is needed to address these issues before publication. More detailed comments are listed below:

Major comments:

1.      Since the characteristics and distribution of the precipitation and cloud microphysics were focused on being explored in the manuscript, the timal features of the precipitation and cloud microphysics are not detailed discussed and need to be complemented in the revision.

2.      The main point of this study is the conversion terms influences during the formation and development stages of the rainstorm. However, there exists only the discussion of the average vertical profiles of the conversion rate in the manuscript. It can be suggested that the profiles of conversion terms of MCSs needed to be added and the related discussion should be supplemented in the revision.

Specific Comments:

1.      Change the colors of the -20℃ and 0℃ lines in all the profiles in the manuscript to make them more prominent.

2.      There is a time error in the caption of the image on line 231 of the manuscript.

3.      For the manuscript on lines 412-417, please explain how the interpolation was used to calculate the RMSE and the correlation coefficient.

4.      Make the site caption on line 447 more detailed.

5.      The explanations for Eprds and Eprdg in line 812 are not reasonable.

 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer：

I have  provided the responses in the attached Word document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript undertakes a meticulous examination of atmospheric non-uniform saturation effects on cloud microphysical processes during a severe rainfall event in Zhengzhou. It introduces a new scheme based on non-uniform saturation theory and leverages high-resolution numerical simulations to analyze the contributing atmospheric conditions and mechanisms. While advancing simulation capabilities for extreme hourly rainfall forecasting significantly, the study also points towards areas where a deeper exploration could provide more insights. The detailed feedback is as follows:

    1. The paper successfully correlates the intrusion of dry and cold air at higher altitudes to the supersaturation and water vapor condensation, which purportedly spearheaded the heavy rainfall. It would be great if the authors can link the case study to some statistical findings. Can this result be valid for other rainfall cases?
    2. While the study utilizes radar data for model validation, the authors can add more discussions for the uncertainties and limitations for the radar data, which can increase the robustness of the study.
    3. The manuscript conducts a comparative analysis of the newly introduced scheme versus the original, indicating a better performance in predicting stronger rainfall intensity with the former. While the explanation revolves around the larger process of snow and graupel melting in the new scheme, the authors may consider to add some detailed discussions for the cloud microphysical at the processes level to illustrate how non-uniform saturation instigates these processes.

 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer：

I have  provided the responses in the attached Word document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with model simulation of a severe rainfall event in Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China on July 19-20, 2021. The authors modified cloud microphysical scheme of the cloud-water condensation parameterization process. The work is having potential to be published and has scientific findings. I have following suggestions for further improvements of the work:

-       In the abstract, you will summarise the findings in brief. The authors should rephrase their sentences, especially the one which says, “The following conclusions were made”.

-       In the first paragraph of Introduction, all the big statements are adopted only from one reference “Wenru Shi et al., 2021”? I doubt so. Please give references for the statements properly. Also, the referencing style is not ok as per MDPI style.

-       Third para of Introduction, which talks about the literature review is not having any connection. Kindly revisit the section and improve the connectivity.

-       Please provide a site map/study region map with latitude and longitudes on the x/y axis.

-       What was the reason to use ERA5data, kindly add the explanation in the revised manuscript.

-       How the Skew-T Log-P plots were made? Are they available at any source? If yes, provide the link. If authors have plotted them, share the link of data in the revised manuscript with link of program/software used to plot them.

-       Kindly give a number to equation on page 7, and discuss what is theta Gao, and theta?

-       State, which version of WRF the authors are using? Also, state is it ARW or NMM?

-       Provide equation numbers to equations on page 8.

-       Section 3.2, are you showing it as a table or equations? Not very clear. In any case, it should have numbers for equations and table caption for table.

-       Provide equation numbers to equations on page 9.

-       Suddenly equation numbers appear to equations on page 10, as 2.2.2. Correct it.

-       Section 4.1, it is not Auto Weather Station, but it should be Automatic Weather Station

-       Section 4.2: heading: Doppler Weather Radar

-       Most of the Figures have very small and unreadable x and y axis. Kindly improve them.

-       Does changing the equation in the scheme, does have any accountability on the precipitation estimation and humidity plots by the model too? Explain in the revision.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer：

I have  provided the responses in the attached Word document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf