Evaluation of WRF Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization Schemes for Dry Season Conditions over Complex Terrain in the Liangshan Prefecture, Southwestern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This a interesting work of good standing. The work is recommended from publication.

Some minor comments are given below,

Line 101:
"... from the entire paper ..."
replace by,
"... from the whole effort ..."

Line 160:
The authors are asked to double-check their reference 22 in relation to the Lin microphysics scheme.

Line 166:
"... innermost domain (d02, d03) ..."
Depending on your choice, please correct to 
... innermost domain (d03) ...
or
"... innermost domains (d02, d03) ..." 

-----End of recommendations-----

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's time and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the suggestions as follows:

Comments 1 (Line 101): "... from the entire paper ..." replace by, "... from the whole effort ..."

Reponse 1:  We have revised the text as suggested ("... from the whole effort ..."). 

Comments 2 (Line 160): The authors are asked to double-check their reference 22 in relation to the Lin microphysics scheme.

Reponse 2: We have carefully reviewed and updated Reference 22 to the correct citation for the Lin microphysics scheme: New Reference 22:​ Lin, Y.-L., R.D. Farley, and H.D. Orville, Bulk Parameterization of the Snow Field in a Cloud Model. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 1983. 22(6): p. 1065–1092.

  Comments 3 (Line 166):  "... innermost domain (d02, d03) ..." Depending on your choice, please correct to  ... innermost domain (d03) ... or "... innermost domains (d02, d03) ..." 

Reponse 3: We have revised the text to: "...innermost domains (d02, d03)..."   

All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for easy identification. We thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions that have helped improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the article, an overall impression emerges that it is highly specialized and reads more like a technical description of the investigated problem, which makes it difficult for a broader readership. Nevertheless, it clearly fits within the thematic scope of the journal.

I have only a few minor comments.

#104 In the title, the term “Liangshan Region” is used, whereas in the text the name “Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture” appears. Please clarify and use consistent terminology (Region vs. Prefecture).

#110 The dry season is defined as “November to May”, while in #119 it is stated that “This study selects two different time periods representing spring and winter for simulation and validation.” Since November does not strictly belong to winter, the terminology used to describe the study periods should be unified and made consistent throughout the manuscript, including the title.

Section 2.1
A map showing the study area in the context of the whole of China is missing, as is a concise and accessible geographical description of the region, including its main physical-geographical units.

#114–115 The statement “…resulting in minimal precipitation that accounts for only 10% to 15% of the annual total” provides only relative values. Please specify the corresponding absolute precipitation amounts for the study area.

I also have reservations as to whether two short episodes can be considered representative of the entire dry season in the Liangshan region. Perhaps these cases should be referred to as a “sample” rather than fully representative periods — this is for the authors to consider.

Finally, the conclusions appear somewhat overly confident, given the limited statistical sample. A more cautious interpretation of the results would be advisable.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough review and valuable comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and precision of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each point raised, as detailed below.

Comments 1 (Line 104): #104 In the title, the term “Liangshan Region” is used, whereas in the text the name “Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture” appears. Please clarify and use consistent terminology (Region vs. Prefecture).

Response 1:​ We agree with the reviewer that consistent terminology is essential for clarity. We have standardized the name to "Liangshan Prefecture" throughout the entire manuscript, including the title, figures, and tables. The title has been revised to: "Evaluation of WRF Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization Schemes for Dry-Season Conditions over Complex Terrain in the Liangshan Prefecture, Southwestern China."

Comments 2 (Line 110): #110 The dry season is defined as “November to May”, while in #119 it is stated that “This study selects two different time periods representing spring and winter for simulation and validation.” Since November does not strictly belong to winter, the terminology used to describe the study periods should be unified and made consistent throughout the manuscript, including the title.

Response 2: We have revised the dry season definition in the manuscript (Line 110) to "December to May of the following year". This change ensures that the defined dry season better aligns with the "winter" case study period (December 24-27) mentioned in the manuscript.

Comments 3 (Section 2.1): A map showing the study area in the context of the whole of China is missing, as is a concise and accessible geographical description of the region, including its main physical-geographical units.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. We have significantly revised Figure 2 to include an inset map showing the location of Liangshan Prefecture within the context of China. Additionally, Section 2.1 has been enriched with a more detailed geographical description, explicitly mentioning key physical units such as the Hengduan Mountains, the Anning River Valley, and the Jinsha and Dadu Rivers, which characterize the region's complex terrain. (Please see revised Section 2.1 and Figure 2).

Comments 4: (Line 114-115)​ #114–115"The statement '…resulting in minimal precipitation that accounts for only 10% to 15% of the annual total' provides only relative values. Please specify the corresponding absolute precipitation amounts for the study area."

Response 4: We have updated the manuscript to include absolute precipitation values to provide a clearer climatological context. Based on long-term data from the Liangshan Meteorological Bureau, the average annual precipitation in the region ranges from 800 to 1100 mm, with the dry season receiving only 80 to 150 mm. The revised sentence now reads: "...resulting in minimal precipitation (80–150 mm) that accounts for only 10% to 15% of the annual total (800–1100 mm)."

Comment 5: I also have reservations as to whether two short episodes can be considered representative of the entire dry season in the Liangshan region. Perhaps these cases should be referred to as a “sample” rather than fully representative periods — this is for the authors to consider.

Response 5: Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s professional insight on this point. We agree that two episodes cannot capture the full statistical variability of the entire dry season. Accordingly, we have downgraded our terminology: the word "representative" has been replaced with "typical sample cases" or "selected episodes" throughout the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion.

Comment 6: Finally, the conclusions appear somewhat overly confident, given the limited statistical sample. A more cautious interpretation of the results would be advisable.

Response 6: Following the reviewer's advice, we have moderated the tone of our conclusions to avoid over-generalization. We also added a sentence to the concluding paragraph to explicitly acknowledge the limitation and outline future work: "It is important to note that these findings are based on a limited sample of clear-sky episodes. Future work will extend the temporal scope to multi-seasonal and multi-year analyses..." We also clarify that while these findings provide valuable insights into specific PBL processes, further validation using multi-year datasets is required to establish broader climatological conclusions.