Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

This paper presents a verification study of 3D-Var radar data assimilation in WRF model at mesoscale-synoptic scales.  There is no originality in assimilation method, but as a verification study at an operational level it is worthy of publication after corrections and additions which are mentioned in the specific comments.

Specific Comments

Abstract, l. 17: After the phrase "compare the accuracy" add with what it is compared to.

l. 38 and l. 41: Correct "en" with "been" and "condensations" with "condensation".

l. 63: With what constraint?

l. 78: Correct "studie" with "studies".

l. 108: The AWS have been also used in the assimilation system. The authors should also present the results with AWS assimilation in order to show the actual effect of radar data assimilation.

l. 186: The version 3.7.1 of WRF is quite old. It should be replaced with a more recent version where main bugs have been fixed.

Table 2: The authors should mention the reasons of the selection of the specific microphysics parameterization as they did for cumulus parameterization. For example, is it more suitable for high resolutions (1.5 km for the inner grid)?

l. 223-224: The departure is between y0 and the corresponding model parameters H(xb), not xb.

l. 236-239: This is an indirect radar data assimilation by modifying the humidity in cloud based on radar reflectivity thresholds. There are other more advanced methods of almost direct assimilation of radar reflectivity. Have the authors tried these schemes and decided to use this indirect method?

l. 244: Add "radar" between "8-9" and "stations". Also, radars cover a large range around them, so they should not be named "stations" which implies local in-situ data.

Figure 4: Generally, the figures are too small. They should have double size than the one presented to be useful. Also, the difference mention in figure caption is between first guess and analysis after assimilation? This should be mentioned.

Figures 6 and 7: The accumulated rainfall  estimated by the radar data should be also shown. This should be more accurate than satellite or AWS products and are also the input to the assimilation scheme which the authors want to test.

l. 446-451: Probably this negative feedback from the radar data could be avoided if positive increment of model humidity is allowed, which is made in standard WRF humidity assimilation scheme using radar observations. In this event, the authors, should be examine the validity of radar data against AWS and make an conclusion about the possible reasons of low radar reflectivity. This event is probably useful in order to show the need for quality control of assimilated radar data.

l. 479-482: A short description and references for these indices should be added. Also, a description of pattern correlation is needed.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor:

The authors are submitting a revised paper for possible publication in your respected Remote Sensing journal, titled “Forecast characteristics of radar data assimilation based on the scales of precipitation systems.” The paper is coauthored by Jeong-Ho Bae and Ki-Hong Min.

We thank the reviewers for his/her helpful suggestions and constructive remarks. The authors addressed all of the points made by each reviewer, amended the manuscript accordingly, and included a point-by-point response to each reviewer’s comments. In addition, the manuscript has been revised carefully and was sent to an English Editing service for professional proof reading. The manuscript is verified for correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and word-use errors.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Ki-Hong Min

School of Earth System Sciences

Kyungpook National University, Daegu, 41566, Korea

E-mail: kmin@knu.ac.kr 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I had a hard time following the paper, lagely because of the relatively poor English. 

In general there is need to assess the benefits of assimilation schemes. However the assessment here fails to really show that to the reader. This in part is prevented by the plots which are too small and difficult to read.  The paper describes different model experiments and shows relative  differences without going into an analysis why model e.g. tends to "over-simulate reflectivity. Since you are using  WRF (a widely used model), you should check for similar experiments and check whether they find  similar issues / results.

You also mention precipitation types in the abstract. (l. 16)  But that isn't really covered in the paper. But perhaps you meant something else here.

some specific comments.

l. 21: "greatly improved": I don't see that really later in the paper...

l . 36: "cloud analysis scheme": what is meant here? do you mean cloud resolving models?

l 36. The sentence as a whole sounds strange.

l. 38: "en" typo?   "been"?

l 38: check the grammar

here I stopped to check the language. A thorough revision of the language by  a native speaker is needed.

l 105: "thinning" is not described. Why is a thinning necessary

l. 124:  any necessity to show the provinces here in the map. Doesn't look like, so please remove

 

l 299_ Figure 4: fonts too small, essentially not readable...  panels d/h) units. It seem to be normalized??? for all the other pannels as well? As such  I cannot judge wheter the shown differences are small or not.

 

l 330:  you refer to fig 5d: I cannot see what you are stating here: an oversimulation of ow pressure is somthing common in these experiments? Explain the reason, or refer to a reference.

 

Section 3.2

The analysis of accumulated precip is hard to follow. I would expect a quantitative analysis and scoring  of the precipitation from the different sources (GPM, AWS, radar, model experiments).

l. 388: hydrometeor growth from troposphere to an altitude of 5.5 km....   don't understand this sentence.

 

section 3.4:

you seem  to show relative improvements, but is a POD of 0.1 for DA in Meso 1 really an improvement? I don't see that..

Is this what other research groups also find. An evaluation of the results is missing.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made changes and additions to the paper. Still, there are points that need further correction. If the authors do not want to focus on radar data assimilation as the title of the paper, the Abstract, the Introduction and the Summary and Discussion sections (at least) suggest but on the combined effect of surface stations (large number and dense network of AWS) and radar data assimilation, they should change these parts of the paper accordingly. The reference to Ha et al. (2011) paper about the AWS+radar data assimilation, which is mentioned in the reply but it is not included even in the revised paper, should be added.

Abstract: Simply change "evaluate the simulation of precipitation and compare its accuracy" to "evaluate the accuracy of the simulation of precipitation ".

Version of WRF: Add in the paper, too, one sentence with the justification of using this version of WRF.

Verification indices:  The description and reference added in the revision are for FSS. For ETS (the authors forgot to add in the revision the sentence mentioned in their reply) and POD their formula could be added. The description of pattern correlation is not useful. The meaning of "correlation" term is well known, but the "pattern" (i.e. just a zero lag 2D correlation?) method is what requires description.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments.

The revised text is indicated in red in the pater.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

thanks for the revision. It reads much better now.

the

only a few  comments/questions:

l.180:  2c/2d: model soundings or radiosonde?

l. 447: sentence sounds strange. The increased reflectivity indicates particle growth, but this is not resason vor precipitation, it is just an indication of the present particle growth mechanisms.

e.g. Fig. 8  e: how do you explain the decrease in Z below  ~ 5km, about 3 dB?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments.

The revised text is indicated in red in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx