Refractivity Observations from Radar Phase Measurements: The 22 May 2002 Dryline Case during IHOP Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments: This paper describes an interesting production based on Radar Phase Measurements and the introduced Radar Refractivity Algorithm, which is of good quality. The current written English seems fine. However, the inspection of the product preparation process is somewhat missing, and I think it can be improved. Also, several suggestions should be carefully considered as follows.

Comment1: Radar is closely related to water vapor, but how is the connection with boundary layer water vapor reflected? Or can it only be observed in deeply developed boundary layers as in the cases in this study?

Comment2: Is the spatial resolution slightly low when using ERA5 data in this article? Please explain. What are the vertical layers used and need to be specified?

Comment3: The error in Table 4 is greater than that in Table 3, and the correlation coefficient is higher. Why? What is the reason behind it?

Comment4: In Lines 15-17, the most important numbers that can support the conclusion of this article should be displayed.

Comment5: In Section 1, the gap this research intends to fill, and the significance of this study should be enhanced for broader reading and reviewing.

Comment6: In Section 2, S-pol Radar and S-band Radar in texts, while S-Pol Radar/surface in Figure 1 and Table 2, inconsistent description, how many radars and weather stations have you used during this study? I think this needs a clear description.

Comment7: Section 3 needs a flowchart of your method for broader reading and reviewing.

Comment8: In Section 5, please clarify the application prospects of this method.

Comment9: Finally, several writing problems need revision as follows:

1- In Line 86, “ in [21] ”, please check if this can meet the standard of Atmosphere, also there are many texts elsewhere like this.

2- In Figure 1, texts in (a) are unreadable, the correspondence between image (b) and text is not clear enough.

3- In Line 173, the meanings of the different stationary targets have never been defined.

4- In Figure 2 description, “at the radar height”?  how?

5- In Lines 208-209, “Ordinary Kriging is a well-established and proved method, widely used”, please give some evidence.

6- In Line 237, “N-units”?, Please use more universal unit expressions.

7- Lines 254-255 should be placed into their next paragraph for conclusion.

8- In Lines 277-280, “unlike ...”, how?

9- The title cannot express the theme of this article to some extent. 

The current written English seems fine. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “Refractivity Observations from Radar Phase Measurements: the 22 May 2002 Dryline Case during IHOP Project” by López et al.

In this paper, the authors present the analysis of a time series of radar-based refractivity maps obtained during a dryline occurred during the IHOP project in May 2022. I found the paper interesting, and I have no specific concerns about the methodology and the analysis of the results. I thus consider that the paper can be accepted with only minor revision.

Minor comments

Line 101. Please, start the sentence with “For this case, results also …”

Line 119. Please, change “… refractivity maps using the kriging interpolation method are obtained” to “… refractivity maps using the kriging interpolation method can be obtained”.

Line 125. Please, change “… the discussion of this work is …” to “… the discussion of the study and some concluding remarks are presented in Section 5.”.

Line 137. Please, remove “is” and let just “as shown in Figure 1b”.

Line 154. Please, change “kelvins” to “kelvin”.

Please, confirm if “15 June 2002” is correct in the caption of Table 3 or if the correct is 25 June 2002 as stated in Lines 131 and 221.

Line 288. Please, confirm if “15 June 2002” is correct.

Please, insert “UTC” after the hour in Figures 5(a)-(l).

Please, insert the year 2002 in the end of the Figure 6 caption.

Line 291. I suggest changing the subsection title to “Discussion and concluding remarks”.

Line 296. Please, remove “in” and let just “… radar refractivity maps presented here …”.

Lines 317-319. I understand that some results may be not interesting to discuss in the present study, but I guess that this is an interesting result to be shown in section 4 and will enrich the analysis, mainly because the authors mentioned the importance of such a result in lines 320-322. However, it is just a suggestion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf