Wuhan MST Radar Observations of a Tropopause Descent Event during Heavy Rain on 1–2 June 2015

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is interesting article about tropopopause variation during a heavy rain, detected by MST radar, radiosonde and observed in the ERAS data.

In text there are some typos that I think must be clearified:

- Line 132: The meaning of the achronimon HCOPAR

- Line 170: Radar beams must be identified to know which beam is N, S, E, W or Vertical

- Line 178: are HCOPAR (line 132) and HCOAPR (line178)

- Line 224: the date should be 2 June 2015 instead 4 june 2015?

- Line 250: should be Figure 8 instead Figure 7 ?

On other hand:

In Figure 7 the wind profile for beams N and S must be in opossite direction and also for beams E and W. It is clear for June 1st 2015 but not clear for june 2nd 2015. In this last day it look like  N and S profiles have the same direction and the same for profiles E and W.

Conclusions

Before an heavy rain there are a lot heat liberation from condensed process of the clouds. This process could have more effect in the tropoause variation that the ozone balance

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the authors investigated the height of the tropopause and the three-dimensional wind fields using the MST radar during the heavy rain on 1-2 June 2015 in central China. The observations of the radar were compared with ERA5 reanalysis and with radiosonde measurements in Wuhan. This topic is interesting, since MST allows continuous observations under any weather conditions and to obtain data with high spatial and temporal resolution. Currently only a few countries have the possibility to use MST radar, due to budget restrictions. However, before I can recommend publication, there are several issues that must be addressed.

At lines 105-106, the authors write that data comes “from the multiple ground station datasets in the ERA5 reanalysis datasets based”, but this is a contradiction: ERA5 is a numerical dataset obtained with a model and it does not contain ground station data. It is necessary a clarification. Moreover, in Figure 2 it is necessary to add also data provided by a real ground station in Wuhan, in order to show the capabilities of ERA5 of reproducing real data.

Similarly, it is necessary to make a validation also for the wind data shown in Figure 6, by adding some data from ERA5 and also from ground stations, if available.

The authors have properly explained how the tropopause height is measured starting from temperature profile. In Figure 5 the tropopause height variations measured by the Wuhan radiosonde are shown, but temperature profiles are not shown. I recommend to add some temperature profiles provided by the radiosonde and by ERA5, in order to show that the tropopause heights shown in Figure 5 have been properly evaluated.

The Conclusions in the present form appear more as a rough summary and do not provide relevant insights. I recommend a deep revision of this important section. Probably the paragraph at lines 340-350 can be moved to the Conclusions.

In the caption of each figure, please clearly state the source of the data plotted (e.g. ERA5, MST, ground station etc.).

Finally, in many points the English style is poor and must be improved. I have highlighted some errors in the following, but there are many sentences that should be rewritten with the help of an English language expert.

Specific comments

Line 46: “Higher” and “lower” with respect to what ?

Line 48: The terms “high time” and “high vertical” are too generical. What do you mean?

Line 101: Add the word “units” or something similar after 400000.

Line 140: change houre with hour.

On vertical axis of figure 1, write mm/h instead of mm.

Line 147: change “the reanalysis data of ERA5” with “ERA5 reanalysis data”.

Line 149: Specify what “Climate Data Store” is. Add a reference or a website.

Line 175: Add km after 16.

Line 175: “power below from 5”. Bad English, I do not understand.

Line 178: HCOAPR is a typo.

Line 179: Add “in” before “Figure 1”.

Line 188: Remove “twice”.

Line 190: determind is a typo.

Line 194: in the pdf file I am reading, the radiosonde curve is blue and not green. The MST curve is red and not blue.

Line 197: temporature is a typo.

Line 208: what do you mean by “neutral velocity” ?

Lines 225-226: Change “a lot” with “significantly”.

Line 227-228: The sentence “The echo spectra … height bins” seems to be stand-alone and not linked with the previous sentence.

Line 240: “present the strong echoes…”. Bad English, I do not understand.

Line 245: “attributes”  must be “attributed”.

Line 249: to arrival,  is a typo

Line 250: Figure 8 instead of 7

In the caption of Figure 8, it is written at “stratospheric heights”, but data are shown for heights from ground to the tropopause (see also what is written at line 251).

Line 264: “gradients their brought”. Bad English, I do not understand.

Line 281: change “there is no much” with “there are no relevant”.

Line 314: change “have” with “has”.

Line 315: change “high” with “large”.

Line 322: explain the source of the data plotted in Figure 11.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I found that the authors have carefully revised the manuscript and properly addressed all my comments. The manuscript has significantly improved and can be accepted for publication, after addressing the following minor corrections.

L. 95: “It observed”. It is not clear to whom “It” is referred. Who/What is the subject? Please clarify.

Figures 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 caption: change EAR5 with ERA5.

L. 263-264: “Most of the time, the vertical winds remains low speeds between ±0.4 m/s”. I suggest to change as: “Most of the time, the vertical wind speed remains low i.e. ±0.4 m/s”.

L. 387: change “implys” with “implies”