Analysis of the Triggering and Maintenance Mechanisms of a Record-Breaking Warm-Sector Extreme-Rainfall Process in Front of an Upper-Level Trough in Tianjin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "Analysis on the triggering and maintenance mechanisms of a record-breaking warm-sector extreme rainfall process in front of an upper-level trough in Tianjin, China" is a study that investigates the causes and mechanisms behind a major extreme rainfall event in China. The article provides a detailed analysis of the weather patterns and atmospheric conditions leading up to and during the extreme rainfall event, using a range of observational data, including radar, satellite, and surface observations. 

However, the article could benefit from a more structured approach to presenting its findings. The article would benefit from clearly outlining the specific research questions that the study aimed to address and providing a clear framework for how the findings contribute to the broader understanding of extreme weather events.

In conclusion, while the article provides a valuable contribution to the field of atmospheric science, it could benefit from a more structured and detailed analysis of the mechanisms that led to the extreme rainfall event. I suggest that the authors revise the article to provide more in-depth analysis and a clearer structure for presenting their findings.

Q1: The abstract has five sections and you should follow the best practices in your area! Please also mention the research purpose, the research significance and the research method.

Q2: I advise adding the research gap section to reflect the significance of your study.

Q3: I encourage you to add more detail about your core contributions in the introduction.

Q4: Please check the punctuation. Page 2, line 60; page 8, line 198.

Q5: Please add more references from the target journal. (e.g.,Pu, Yiliang, Sheng Hu, Yali Luo, Xiantong Liu, Lihua Hu, Langming Ye, Huiqi Li, Feng Xia, and Lingyu Gao. "Multiscale Perspectives on an Extreme Warm-Sector Rainfall Event over Coastal South China." Remote Sensing 14, no. 13 (2022): 3110.)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors analyzed a record-breaking extreme rainfall process and investigated the characteristics and reasons. It is helpful to understand the key factors of extreme rainfall. However, the manuscript still needs to be improved. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. The date of rainfall needs to be unified. In the abstract: July 3, 2022; Line 128: July 2-3, 2022.

2. The fig. 1a can’t be found.

3. The “methods” is not mentioned in section of “Data and methods”.

4. The figures in the manuscript need to be improved. For example, the study region should be highlighted in Fig. 1; Change the “time point” to the “time period” in the fig 3a; Missing “(e)” in the Fig. 4, keep the language consistent; The description of the station in the text is opposite to that in the Fig 3b; Add the unit in the fig. 9. Anyway, please check all figures and text carefully.

5. Line 128-129: The rainfall process is characterized by short duration and strong intensity. The figure 2 is not mentioned in text. How are the characteristic of “short duration” reflected?

6. Where is the data of 1-minute rainfall (in section 3) from? There is no introduction about this in section 2.

7.Line 139: Give the values of the historical records to show how much is exceeded.

8.Line 172: What data can reflect the high-humidity environment?

9. Line 180-182: “The potential energy was as high as 1565 J(kg)-1 at 14:00” How to get it from the Fig 4e.

10. Check all “figure omitted” and the text about it, if it is important for research objective, please add it. If not, delete this part.

11. Language editing is desirable. For example, Line 34: [1] before “showed”. Line 54: “The most frequent”.

12. The expression in section 3 & 4 & 5 are too wordy, please streamline it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The format of the hours is not clear (04:00, 08:00, 4:30...) in lines 141, 143 and 145

2. Parentheses (a) and (b), in figure 4, are out of line

3. In figure 3b it is not clear the units and the range of the graph

4. Skip (figure omitted) on lines 168 and 174

5. In figure 4 include subparagraph (e)

6. Include the humidity and room temperature values referred to by the authors in the discussion of result

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and I am satisfied with the authors' responses to my previous comments. The manuscript has been significantly improved and I think it can be accepted for publication.