Evaluating Simulated Microphysics of Stratiform and Convective Precipitation in a Squall Line Event Using Polarimetric Radar Observations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review comments.

Line 230 Sentence beginning with For model data, is not very clear, please rewrite so its better for the reader to understand. Consider breaking the description up in smaller sentences.

 

Line 241, total column was as high as 30-50 kg/m2 is confusing, was it as high as 35 or as high as 50 kg/m2 ? Be very clear.

 

 

In figure 4c , there seems to be some concentric ring patterns in the stratiform reflectivity behind the squall line. Is this an artifact or some kind ? It is not seen in at the other times shown.

 

 

Line 271 "During the mature stage (1200-1500 UTC), the leading edge was marked by deep and intense convective cells, accompanied by fairly heavy rainfall (Figure 5)." It seems to be in an odd place. Perhaps moving it after figure 6 with some more details about the rainfall amounts could be considered. Was there hail and hail contamination in the estimated rainfall etc...

 

 

Line 330, Disagree with this statement that this feature was accurately reproduced.

 

Line 414, Zdr column it does not seem to stretch significantly above the freezing level in either simulation.

 

Line 422, It is not a very obvious sharp decrease.

 

Section 4.3.2 needs to be better organized, it is confusing t the reader to jump to figures that are not described in sequence.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, it was exciting to read this article. I recommend accepting it in its present form.

The Introduction was a great review of the current state of knowledge, and the Observational Data and Methods are very well described. I appreciated the short chapter about the Environmental Conditions and the Case Description because it made the chapter Results much more transparent.

I hope the authors provide a few statistical numbers in the last chapter of the discussion because it helps to support their statements. Otherwise, the reader must go back to the plots and results to verify the statements. But this is just a personal preference and is, therefore, up to the authors.

 

I found a few minor things, and these can be corrected during the publication process:

- Fig 2: The labels of the color scale are hard to read. If possible, try to increase the font

- Fig 7: The upper row is in km, and the lower two are in lat/lon. Please assure the reader that the scales within this region are "comparable" in the text or in the figure capturing. 

- Fig 10 needs a label on the y-axis (Height [km]), at least for the left plots (it was done in Fig 11). It is obvious what the scale is, so it is more of a formality.

My Regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx