A Radar-Based Fast Code for Rainfall Nowcasting over the Tuscany Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

The manuscript currently submitted does not meet the publication standards of Remote Sensing. While the study addresses an important topic in radar-based precipitation nowcasting, the presentation and structure of the paper are not up to the expected academic rigor. The manuscript lacks clarity in its introduction, detailed methodology description, and comprehensive discussion of results. Additionally, there are several formatting and consistency issues throughout the paper. The authors are encouraged to revise the manuscript thoroughly, focusing on improving the logical flow of the introduction, providing more detailed methodological explanations, and enhancing the discussion section. The overall quality of the paper needs significant improvement to be considered for publication in this journal.

1. The abstract is overly general and lacks specific details about the main conclusions of the manuscript. It is essential to provide quantitative descriptions of the key findings to give readers a clear understanding of the study's contributions.
2. The first two paragraphs of the Introduction, which discuss the importance of radar-based short-term weather forecasting in various applications such as airport operations and sports event planning, should be consolidated into a single paragraph to improve coherence.
3. Line 50: The mention of "several methods" lacks specificity. Additionally, using a single sentence as a paragraph is not recommended. It would be better to expand this section with more context or integrate it into a related paragraph.
4. Lines 69-86: The Introduction contains an extensive discussion of the methods used by the authors. Typically, the Introduction should focus more on the research background and the rationale for the chosen methods, rather than detailed descriptions of the methods themselves. Detailed methodological information should be reserved for the Methods section.
5. Lines 98-102: The writing style used here is more suitable for a thesis than a journal article. Journal articles should be concise and focused on the research contributions.
6. Generally, the logic of the Introduction is not clear, and there is insufficient discussion of the current state of research in this field. A more comprehensive review of relevant literature is needed to situate the study within the broader context.
7. Line 103: In journal articles, page breaks are generally not necessary. The manuscript should be formatted as a continuous document.
8. Line 139: There is a missing right parenthesis in this line. Please ensure that all parentheses are properly closed.
9. Lines 105-145: The section on the nowcasting technique lacks detailed information such as formulas and specific methodological steps. This level of detail is crucial for readers to understand and replicate the study.
10. Line 223: The statement that "almost all events have a duration longer than 10 hours" raises questions about the selection criteria for the events. Did the authors specifically choose events with durations exceeding 10 hours? This should be clarified.
11. There are several formatting issues in Table 1, such as the use of commas after "2x2 degrees" and the representation of time as "11.00." These should be standardized and corrected.
12. Lines 237-239: Figure 3 should include subcaptions such as (a), (b), (c), and (d) to clearly distinguish between different panels. Additionally, the y-axis labels for panels b, c, and d are missing variable names and only provide units. These should be added for clarity.
13. Line 251: The authors previously stated that almost all events have a duration longer than 10 hours, but the case study presented here has a duration of only 70 minutes. Please explain the rationale for selecting this particular case study.
14. It is recommended that the authors separate the Discussion section from the Conclusion. A dedicated Discussion section would allow for a more in-depth analysis of the results and their implications.
15. The manuscript does not propose any novel solutions or theoretical advancements. It primarily involves the application of existing tools and algorithms, with a focus on describing the results. The authors should consider how to highlight the unique contributions of their work or provide a more thorough discussion of the theoretical implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments: The development of a radar-based fast-code for rainfall nowcasting shows some innovation, particularly in its design for low - performance hardware. This could broaden the application of nowcasting technology. However, the overall innovation is somewhat limited as the method is mainly based on existing Lagrangian approaches and the rainymotion library. The written language is fine. However, the following issues need to be noted.

Comment 1: Abstract,

1) Attention should be paid to the following aspects

a.What is the principle of the main method used in this study?

b.What is the actual effect of the method, such as the quantifiable number that best supports the conclusion?

2). Ensure that the conclusion in the abstract is an objective summary of the results

Comment 2: Introduction

1) At the end of the first paragraph, it is necessary to clarify the scientific significance of this study

2) Line 50, Does it seem like extra text?

3) Can the hardware cost of technical methods be more specific? Suggest providing a typical hardware based metric.

4)Line 62-64, 87-97, these words seem to be placed in the discussion or outcome

5) The introduction of the methods involved in this study (such as Lines 51-59, 70-73) and their progress needs to be particularly detailed. At the same time, there are too many target words describing this article, which can be explained clearly in less than 3 short sentences.

6) In short, the logical writing of this section is poor, making the research background appear very thin, which obviously reduces the academic value of this article. Suggestion:

a. Write the logic closely around the research problem, such as telling a good story according to "problem/meaning ->research progress of solutions ->breakthrough point of problem-solving ->intended goal/meaning"

b.The issues/gaps, motivations, goals, and contributions addressed by this research institute need to be particularly clarified.

Comment 3: In section 2 Method

1) Line 119-121, Repetitive "[17]“

2) Line106-Line139, There are too many issues in this section, such as:

a. The wording is verbose (Line 124-129) and redundant.

b.The connection between the radar data characteristics and the choice of the nowcasting model could be further strengthened. For example, more details on why the DenseRotation scheme was chosen over other methods would enhance the logical flow

c. It is suggested to focus on the method used in this study, and place an introduction to the advantages and disadvantages of other methods related to this study in the introduction section

d. Finally, if this article has made adjustments to existing methods, it is recommended to draw a detailed flowchart introducing the methods and highlighting these adjustments. And explain the selection criteria and expected goals of these adjustments with questions

4) The text on the right side of equation 1 is recommended to be written in conventional format (such as capitalized first letter) to match the strict formula expression

5) The nowcasting technique based on the Lagrangian method is appropriate for the study objectives. The use of the rainymotion library is reasonable. However, the description of the model's parameters and their optimization process is brief. More information on how the model parameters were determined and validated would improve the methodological section. Also, the selection criteria for these validation indicators need to be clearly defined.

6）Line164, two “sections 2.2”

7) The radar data from the Italian Civil Protection Department (DPC) are reliable and suitable for the study. The selection of the study period (2022-2023) is reasonable. However, additional information on the data preprocessing steps before applying the nowcasting procedure would be helpful. For instance, details on how the radar data were filtered and calibrated could be provided. Also, How many radars are there in total? band? What are the citations from radar data to product preparation methods? Can the product be publicly available? Suggest using a three-line chart to clearly indicate the above objectives.

Comment 4: In section 3 Results

The example given in Figure 4 illustrates the key issue of machine learning: the ability to predict turning weather. Try to analyze:

1) Is the reason behind it a problem with this method, or do other methods have similar issues?

2) If it is a universal problem in machine learning, is it unique to the field of machine learning? Is there a similar problem with precipitation in numerical weather forecasting, such as poorer forecasts for larger precipitation or lower forecasting skills for rare events?

 

Comment 5: In section 4

The results demonstrate the nowcasting performance for different precipitation regimes and domain areas, highlighting the strengths and limitations of the method. However,

1) the discussion could benefit from a more in - depth comparison with other nowcasting models, especially in terms of computational efficiency and accuracy for different types of precipitation events.

2) Also, Limitations of the study, such as the applicability of these conclusions under different climatic backgrounds, should be clearly addressed.

3) The findings have practical significance for short - term weather forecasting, especially in operational settings with limited computational resources. However, the applicability of the results to other regions or radar systems is not discussed. A section on the limitations and potential extensions of the study would strengthen its broader impact.

Comment 6: The references are comprehensive and cover relevant literature in the field. However, including more recent studies would reflect the latest developments in the field and strengthen the timeliness of the manuscript. 

e.g., Line 148, "... used in literature [X]". Suggest citing the following literature on the applicability evaluation of ratings at “X”.

Comparative Evaluation of Rainfall Forecasts during the Summer of 2020 over Central East China. Atmos.,2023, 14(6):992．

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The written language is fine. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Though the algorithmic innovation may be somewhat limited, the study holds significant practical value and has made meaningful improvements to existing methods. The authors have also adequately addressed the issues raised by the reviewers. Therefore, it is recommended that the article be accepted. However, prior to final acceptance, the following suggestions could be considered to further enhance the manuscript:

  Emphasize practical significance: The conclusion could more thoroughly detail the potential real-world applications and specific advantages of the method in operational meteorology, such as how it can be integrated with other forecasting systems.
  Include comparisons with advanced methods: To provide a more comprehensive assessment of the proposed method's strengths and limitations, additional comparative experiments and analyses with more advanced forecasting techniques could be beneficial.
  Proofread for language and formatting: A final review of the manuscript for any linguistic or formatting inconsistencies is recommended to ensure the article's precision and professionalism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf