Trends in Changes in the Duration of Thunderstorms and Atmospheric Blocking over the Caspian Region Under Current Climate Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for the manuscript “Trends in Interannual Changes in the Total Duration of Thunderstorms over the Caspian Region under Current Climate Warming” (Manuscript ID atmosphere-3948976):

This manuscript investigates the correlation between the trends of the total duration of thunderstorms and atmospheric blockages over the Caspian region. In my opinion, this manuscript demonstrates substantial deficiencies in rigorous scientific exposition, logical coherence and language expressions. Therefore, I suggest a rejection to this manuscript. Please find a list of my comments in the following.

Major comments

1. Critical Deficiency in Core Argumentation: The manuscript substantiates its central claim solely by presenting separate trend plots for TDB and TDT and asserting their "general correlation". Crucially, it lacks quantitative evidence to demonstrate spatial co-variability; No temporal coupling analysis of time series to verify dynamic co-evolution mechanisms.
2. The description of the identification criteria for "atmospheric blocking" remains somewhat vague. While the text mentions that "the Leženas-Oakland criterion is met for isobaric surfaces not only at 500 HPa, but also at 300 and 850 HPa," it does not provide the specific mathematical definition or thresholds used for this criterion in the study. This omission makes the research difficult to replicate.
3. The "Abstract" and "methodology" sections fails to convey methodological rigor and clarity; furthermore, the "Abstract"  section does not adequately articulate the unique findings and scholarly contributionsof this study.
4. The second sentence in “Abstract” section mentioned the “studied territory” (In fact, the more commonly used expression is "study area"), yet the first sentence fails to explicitly define this scope (i.e., where is the "study area"), merely stating that station data over the northern part of the Caspian region are utilized. If the study area is the entire Caspian region, the methodology of extrapolating total duration for thunderstorm over the whole Caspian region solely from station data over the northern part of the Caspian region exhibits significant flaws, lacking both scientific validity and spatial representativeness.
5. The entire manuscripthas a particularly large number of paragraphs composed of one sentence. I have never seen an academic paper written in this way. Furthermore, substantial improvements are required in both textual coherence, clarity and logical flow.

Minor comments:

6. The use of full capitalization for every word in the title does not comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines.Please carefully review the journal’s submission guidelines for all formatting specifications.
7. Lines 6-9: The presentation of author affiliations also fails to meet the journal’s requirements.
8. Line 10: Some expressions are not clear in meaning, for example, what is the “actual data”means ? Is this meant to be “observational data”?
9. Lines 12-14: The meaning expressed in the second sentence “It has been established that over the studied territory, as well as over other regions of Northern Eurasia,the values of the indicator increased overall during the specified period.”is very vague. For example, what kind of indicator? What is the specified period? Or what is the beginning and ending year of this period?
10. Lines 14-15: Furthermore, the expression like “in some locations in the 21st century”is also rather confusing.
11. Lines 15-17: The following sentence “A hypothesis has been put forward that the reason for the identified effect is changes in the total duration of atmospheric blockages passing over the region.”also fails to convey the intended meaning clearly, for instance, what is the “identified effect” refer to? What kind of effect it is? Readers are likely to be confused when they read this sentence.
12. Lines 26-30: The phrasing "...remains unchanged" contradicts "continues to warm" logically. If future climate warming persists, the duration of atmospheric blocking events would likely change as well, given the established influence of global warming on atmospheric circulation patterns.
13. Figure 1 suffers from insufficient resolution and lacks georeferencing (latitude/longitude coordinates), compromising spatial interpretability.
14. Where is the Figure 2?
15. Line 148: Why was 800 hPa chosen to represent the lower atmosphere instead of the more commonly used 850 hPa in the field of meteorology?
16. Lines 173-178: It should be “hPa”, not “HPa”.
17. Line 409-410: The verb 'determining' at the end of the sentence 'The persistence and strength of this inverse relationship confirm that changes in atmospheric blocking play a dominant role in determining' lacks an object, making the sentence incomplete.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors appreciate your attention to the article. Based on your comments and recommendations, we have made the following changes.

 

Comment 1: [Critical Deficiency in Core Argumentation: The manuscript substantiates its central claim solely by presenting separate trend plots for TDB and TDT and asserting their "general correlation". Crucially, it lacks quantitative evidence to demonstrate spatial co-variability; No temporal coupling analysis of time series to verify dynamic co-evolution mechanisms.]

Response 1: [The manuscript primarily argues for the inverse relationship between TDB and TDT by comparing the trends (VACLT values) shown in separate figures (e.g., Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7)1. The conclusion asserts a "strong inverse relationship" and that "Periods with longer blocking durations were associated with a decrease in thunderstorm duration"2. However, the core of the proof is based on the qualitative observation of opposing signs in the Value of the Angular Coefficient of the Linear Trend (VACLT) between the TDB and TDT time series, as shown in the figures, rather than a direct, quantitative correlation analysis between the two variables themselves (TDB and TDT) for the same time window.Missing Quantitative Coupling Analysis: While the paper assesses the statistical relationships between TDB in different geographical sectors, and the statistical stability of the individual TDT and TDB trends, it does not explicitly present the correlation coefficient values for the interannual changes between TDB and TDT time series. The text mentions that for June and August, there is a "universal correlation between the trends in changes" 55and that the inverse relationship "confirm[s] that changes in atmospheric blocking play a dominant role"6, but it fails to provide the correlation coefficient for the TDB vs. TDT relationship to substantiate this claim quantitatively.

The article (lines 373-380 and 398-405) shows the correlation between atmospheric blockings across the territory and the correlation for thunderstorms.

The correlation coefficients between the number of thunderstorms and the recurrence of atmospheric blockages at all stations range from 0.88 to 0.95.

The figure shows the dependence for June at the Atyrau station (on the x-axis – the number of thunderstorms in June, on the y-axis – the number of days with blockages in June).]

 

Comment 2: [The description of the identification criteria for "atmospheric blocking" remains somewhat vague. While the text mentions that "the Leženas-Oakland criterion is met for isobaric surfaces not only at 500 HPa, but also at 300 and 850 HPa," it does not provide the specific mathematical definition or thresholds used for this criterion in the study. This omission makes the research difficult to replicate.]

Response 2: [Added the formula for calculating the Lezhenas-Oakland criterion to lines 170-174]

 

Comment 3: [The "Abstract" and "methodology" sections fails to convey methodological rigor and clarity; furthermore, the "Abstract” section does not adequately articulate the unique findings and scholarly contributionsof this study.

Comment 4: [The second sentence in “Abstract” section mentioned the “studied territory” (In fact, the more commonly used expression is "study area"), yet the first sentence fails to explicitly define this scope (i.e., where is the "study area"), merely stating that station data over the northern part of the Caspian region are utilized. If the study area is the entire Caspian region, the methodology of extrapolating total duration for thunderstorm over the whole Caspian region solely from station data over the northern part of the Caspian region exhibits significant flaws, lacking both scientific validity and spatial representativeness.]

Response 3-4: [The abstract for the article has been completely updated. In the following, we used not sectors, but parts, i.e. parts of the territory.]

 

Comment 5: [The entire manuscripthas a particularly large number of paragraphs composed of one sentence. I have never seen an academic paper written in this way. Furthermore, substantial improvements are required in both textual coherence, clarity and logical flow.]

Response 5: [The paragraphs in the article have been combined where possible.]

 

Comment 6: [The use of full capitalization for every word in the title does not comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines.Please carefully review the journal’s submission guidelines for all formatting specifications.]

Response 6: [Unnecessary abbreviations have been removed, such as the linear trend correlation coefficient.]

 

Comment 7: [The presentation of author affiliations also fails to meet the journal’s requirements.]

Response 7: [looked at examples in other articles and corrected them]

 

Comment 8: [Line 10: Some expressions are not clear in meaning, for example, what is the “actual data”means ? Is this meant to be “observational data”?]

Response 8: [You are absolutely right in noting that factual data is observed data. Corrections have been made to the annotation.]

 

Comment 9: [Lines 12-14: The meaning expressed in the second sentence “It has been established that over the studied territory, as well as over other regions of Northern Eurasia,the values of the indicator increased overall during the specified period.”is very vague. For example, what kind of indicator? What is the specified period? Or what is the beginning and ending year of this period?]

Comment 10: [Lines 14-15: Furthermore, the expression like “in some locations in the 21st century”is also rather confusing.]

Comment 11: [Lines 15-17: The following sentence “A hypothesis has been put forward that the reason for the identified effect is changes in the total duration of atmospheric blockages passing over the region.”also fails to convey the intended meaning clearly, for instance, what is the “identified effect” refer to? What kind of effect it is? Readers are likely to be confused when they read this sentence.]

Comment 12: [Lines 26-30: The phrasing "...remains unchanged" contradicts "continues to warm" logically. If future climate warming persists, the duration of atmospheric blocking events would likely change as well, given the established influence of global warming on atmospheric circulation patterns.]

 

Response 9-12: [The abstract for the article has been completely updated.]

 

Comment 13: [Figure 1 suffers from insufficient resolution and lacks georeferencing (latitude/longitude coordinates), compromising spatial interpretability.]

Response 13: [Response: Figure 1 has been replaced with another one, with geographical reference to the coordinate grid.]

 

Comment 14: [Where is the Figure 2? ]

Response 14: [Response: made corrections to the numbering of figures]

 

Comment 15: [Line 148: Why was 800 hPa chosen to represent the lower atmosphere instead of the more commonly used 850 hPa in the field of meteorology?]

Response 15: [Response: 850 hPa]

 

Comment 16: [Lines 173-178: It should be “hPa”, not “HPa”.]

Response 16: [Response: Corrected throughout the article to “hPa”]

 

Comment 17: [Line 409-410: The verb 'determining' at the end of the sentence 'The persistence and strength of this inverse relationship confirm that changes in atmospheric blocking play a dominant role in determining' lacks an object, making the sentence incomplete.]

Response 17: [Response: We removed this sentence.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzes the relationship between thunderstorm activity and climate warming based on 10 years of thunderstorm and climate data from the Caspian region. The dataset is valuable and provides important insights into thunderstorm discharge activities in this area. However, the overall presentation of the paper requires substantial improvement.

Manuscript organization and formatting
The structure and formatting of the manuscript are not standard, and the figures are rather rough and lack academic rigor. I strongly suggest the authors improve the presentation quality to enhance readability and better demonstrate the unique value of this dataset.

Terminology and abbreviations
The terms TDB and TDT should be clearly defined when they first appear in the text.
Also, please avoid using too many uncommon abbreviations (e.g., VACLT), as they significantly reduce readability.

Figures and data presentation
In Figure 3, the x-axis is missing the year labels. Please ensure all figures are properly annotated.
Additionally, the discussion section should elaborate on factors that may influence both the blockages and the total time of blockages.

Data sources and methodology
The paper should clearly explain how the thunderstorm and blockage data were obtained. Are there references describing the data acquisition and measurement methods? If so, please cite them properly.

Citation balance
Among the 35 references, at least 10 are self-citations. Please consider citing a broader range of relevant literature to strengthen the paper’s academic balance.

Literature suggestions
For studies on lightning detection and lightning characteristics, I recommend including references on thunderstorm characteristics in China, such as:

Changzhi Peng, Feifan Liu, Baoyou Zhu, Ming Ma, Helin Zhou, Zilong Qin, Gaopeng Lu, Wenwei Wang, Yongping Wang,
Observations of single-stroke flashes from five isolated small thunderstorms in East China,
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 211, 2020, 105441, ISSN 1364-6826.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to the article.

Comments 1 [Terminology and abbreviations The terms TDB and TDT should be clearly defined when they first appear in the text.
Also, please avoid using too many uncommon abbreviations (e.g., VACLT), as they significantly reduce readability.]

Response 1 [The total duration of thunderstorms and atmospheric blockages has indeed been successfully reduced by the abbreviation. Therefore, we left it in, but removed the correlation coefficient. You are right in noting that it may be a little difficult for the reader to decipher. ]

Comments 2 [Figures and data presentation In Figure 3, the x-axis is missing the year labels. Please ensure all figures are properly annotated.
Additionally, the discussion section should elaborate on factors that may influence both the blockages and the total time of blockages.]

Response 2 [The abbreviations ‘value of the angular coefficient of the linear trend’ were removed from the figures.
The caption ‘year’ was not added to the x-axis, as there are many labels and the numbers are clear.
The ‘Discussion’ section was expanded, new information was added, and explanations were expanded.]

Comments 3 [Data sources and methodology The paper should clearly explain how the thunderstorm and blockage data were obtained. Are there references describing the data acquisition and measurement methods? If so, please cite them properly.]

Response 3 [Added Lejenas-Okland calculation criteria. Expanded references. .]

Comments 4 [Citation balance. Among the 35 references, at least 10 are self-citations. Please consider citing a broader range of relevant literature to strengthen the paper’s academic balance..]

Response 4 [The list of references has been revised, and new sources have been added based on your recommendations. Self-citation has been reduced. The total number of references is 32, including 4 authors.]

We also made changes to the title, abstract, and discussion. Many minor edits were made to the text based on recommendations from other reviewers.
Thank you very much for your recommendations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is dedicated to the interannual changes in the total duration of thunderstorms over the Caspian region he results. The results of this research could be useful for practical application; however, the manuscript must be improved. Please consider the following suggestions.

The title of the article doesn’t completely reflect its content: the Authors present the results of atmospheric blocking processes research also.

Line 83-88. What for this information here? This is not the region of under study. However, if it is important, expand this part and add corresponding papers. Was the mentioned investigation for Siberia carried out by the Authors only? I do not think so.

Line 119, Line 168.  “Kholoptsev (2025) proposes a method for..”, “When identifying atmospheric blocking, the methodology proposed in (Kholoptsev, 2024; Kholoptsev, Naurozbayeva, 2024) was applied”. - is it a unique method? What are advantages and disadvantages, in comparison with others? For example, with the methods, offered by Tibaldi S. or Hoskins B.J., etc.

Line 148. 800 or 850 hPa?

Line 179-181. Clarify, please, what does it mean “sectors”? What kind of sectors? This is not evident even from the Section 2.

Line 194-195. What does this self-citation mean? This is standard method for statistical significance estimation, which was not developed by the Author.

Line 225. What kind of other parts? – in the Figure caption

Line 254-286. Do the Authors describe their own the results? Add more detailed information, how you get these results and what research they are based on. Or these are just well-known processes, described in the literature? In this case, add corresponding references.

Line 328-348. The same - Many statements without any basement.

There are no any quantitative estimates in the text – for trends and correlation coefficients. These values should be added in the text and in Abstract. Otherwise, the article is dedicated only to comparative analysis without mathematical/statistical confirmation.

Line 473-476. “The study effectively addresses a gap in existing literature by specifically investigating the interplay between climate warming, atmospheric blockages, and thunderstorm duration in the Caspian region. While many studies focus on wind regimes, storm surges, and sea waves in this area, the present research brings attention to the equally important, yet less explored, aspect of thunderstorm activity.” – What kind of studies? Where are the references?

The Discussion section must be improved. The Authors should add the information about study limitations and future direction. What new knowledge did you get? Please emphasize the novelty of the study here with the references to the literature. Many self-citation cases in the text makes it difficult to assess the degree of novelty of the results obtained.

Author Response

Comment 1 [The title of the article doesn’t completely reflect its content: the Authors present the results of atmospheric blocking processes research also.]

Response 1 [We really should change the title. We propose a new title -Trends in changes in the duration of thunderstorms and atmospheric blocking over the Caspian region under current climate conditions ]

Comment 2 [Line 83-88. What for this information here? This is not the region of under study. However, if it is important, expand this part and add corresponding papers. Was the mentioned investigation for Siberia carried out by the Authors only? I do not think so.]

Response 2 [This information has been removed and another source of literature has been added. ]

Comment 3 [Line 119, Line 168.  “Kholoptsev (2025) proposes a method for..”, “When identifying atmospheric blocking, the methodology proposed in (Kholoptsev, 2024; Kholoptsev, Naurozbayeva, 2024) was applied”. - is it a unique method? What are advantages and disadvantages, in comparison with others? For example, with the methods, offered by Tibaldi S. or Hoskins B.J., etc.]

Response 3 [This research uses a generalised approach based on ERA5 reanalysis data, which combines both methods and eliminates their main shortcomings, ensuring a more complete correspondence with the properties of meridional-type ABs. The decision to detect an AB was made if all three conditions were met for at least 5 days: Atmospheric pressure reduced to sea level exceeds 1015 hPa. Geopotential values on isobaric surfaces of 300, 500, and 850 hPa exceed the monthly average values by at least 200 m2/s2. The Lejona-Oakland criterion is met for isobaric surfaces of 300, 500 and 850 hPa (and not just 500 hPa). This comprehensive approach, although more complex to implement, allows for a more complete consideration of the altitude structure of the AB, thereby minimising the likelihood of false decisions about its presence.]

Comment 4 [Line 148. 800 or 850 hPa?]

Response 4 [850 hPa]

Comment 5 [Line 179-181. Clarify, please, what does it mean “sectors”? What kind of sectors? This is not evident even from the Section 2.]

Response 5 [I replaced the word ‘sector’ with ‘part’, meaning that it is part of the territory – western and eastern. ]

Comment 6 [Line 194-195. What does this self-citation mean? This is standard method for statistical significance estimation, which was not developed by the Author.]

Response 6 [The identified trend was considered significant if the reliability of the statistical conclusion exceeded 0.95. If the confidence level of a conclusion is greater than 0.95, this means that the confidence level is greater than 95%. This is the probability that, for example, the constructed confidence interval actually contains the true, but unknown, value of the population parameter. If you repeat the experiment many times, then in more than 95% of cases, the resulting intervals will contain the true parameter. Self-citation removed.]

Comment 7 [Line 225. What kind of other parts? – in the Figure caption]

Response 7 [it is part of the territory – western and eastern.The title was changed. ]

Comment 8 [

Line 254-286. Do the Authors describe their own the results? Add more detailed information, how you get these results and what research they are based on. Or these are just well-known processes, described in the literature? In this case, add corresponding references.

Line 328-348. The same - Many statements without any basement.

There are no any quantitative estimates in the text – for trends and correlation coefficients. These values should be added in the text and in Abstract. Otherwise, the article is dedicated only to comparative analysis without mathematical/statistical confirmation.

Line 473-476. “The study effectively addresses a gap in existing literature by specifically investigating the interplay between climate warming, atmospheric blockages, and thunderstorm duration in the Caspian region. While many studies focus on wind regimes, storm surges, and sea waves in this area, the present research brings attention to the equally important, yet less explored, aspect of thunderstorm activity.” – What kind of studies? Where are the references?

The Discussion section must be improved. The Authors should add the information about study limitations and future direction. What new knowledge did you get? Please emphasize the novelty of the study here with the references to the literature. Many self-citation cases in the text makes it difficult to assess the degree of novelty of the results obtained.

]

Response 8 [trends and correlation coefficients - ---- The correlation coefficients between the number of thunderstorms and the recurrence of atmospheric blockages at all stations range from 0.88 to 0.95. Line  361-364.    We established empirical relationships between the number of thunderstorms and the frequency of blockages. The x-axis represents the number of thunderstorms in June, and the y-axis represents the number of days with blockages. Graphs were constructed for each month.

The discussion was complemented by novelty: The novelty of the study lies in the fact that it has identified a trend in changes in the duration of thunderstorms on the Caspian Sea coast and that trends in atmospheric blocking variations in May-August are more significant than the impact of climate warming. This is particularly evident in June and August. In May and July, there are stations where the number of thunderstorms increases, indicating a strong influence of local climate warming.

It is assumed that the likely future trends in the dynamics of natural processes in the Caspian region will coincide with the trends in further changes in atmospheric blockages.

The results of the quantitative assessment, the correlation between thunderstorms and blockages, and references were added to the text.]

Thank you very much for your recommendations. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The consequences of current climate change, expressed through global warming, include an increase in atmospheric moisture content and energy potential. This leads not only to regional trends in key climate indicators defined by the WMO but also to changes in the characteristics of various weather phenomena, including hazardous ones such as thunderstorms. This phenomenon is associated with the development of cumulonimbus clouds, both of air-mass and frontal origins. Among the consequences of climate change are an increase in the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms, a shift in their seasonality and geographical distribution, as well as an increase in the number of long-lived thunderstorm systems, such as super cells, which are the primary producers of large hail, tornadoes, and destructive squalls. In this context, the article under review is highly relevant and presents significant interest for the aviation industry and agriculture.

In their article, the authors investigated changes in the total duration of thunderstorms that have occurred in recent years in the northern part of the Caspian region. The informational basis for the authors' research consisted of reanalysis ERA5 data for the period from 1959 to 2025, as well as observational data. They found that there is an increase in thunderstorm duration over the territory of the studied region, which aligns with the general trends of changing thunderstorm activity over the entire northern Eurasia. At the same time, the authors discovered that in the last approximately two decades, in some regions thunderstorm activity has weakened, which they associate with an increased frequency of blocking events. It should be noted that the authors provide a physical justification for the observed trends in thunderstorm activity, linking them to the incursion of Arctic air into relatively southern regions due to blocking.

In general, the article makes a good impression. However, for the article to appear as a fully complete scientific study, I recommend that the authors substantially revise Section 2 concerning the methodology. Attention should also be paid to grammar.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to the article.
Based on your comments, the methodological section has been updated, and the formulas for calculating the Lejenas -Okland  criteria have been added.
The abstract, title, and discussion have also been updated. Edits from other reviewers have been incorporated into the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having evaluated the authors' revised manuscript, I acknowledge many improvements over the initial version. However, critical flaws remain unaddressed: this study is confined solely to identifying the negative correlation between the TDT and TDB, without elucidating the underlying physical mechanisms. I still believe that this manuscript exhibits deficiencies in academic rigor and lacks scientific novelty. Therefore, I still recommend rejection.

Author Response

Comment 1 [Having evaluated the authors' revised manuscript, I acknowledge many improvements over the initial version. However, critical flaws remain unaddressed: this study is confined solely to identifying the negative correlation between the TDT and TDB, without elucidating the underlying physical mechanisms. I still believe that this manuscript exhibits deficiencies in academic rigor and lacks scientific novelty. Therefore, I still recommend rejection.]

Response 1 [We fully agree with your observation that our current study is limited to identifying a negative correlation between thunderstorm activity and atmospheric blocking and does not include elucidating the underlying physical mechanisms.

We would like to emphasize that the primary goal of this work was to statistically establish the existence of this negative relationship and quantify its significance and strength—that is, to identify the phenomenological relationship itself. We see this as a key novelty and a necessary first step for further, more in-depth research.
Analysis of the physical mechanisms underlying the identified correlation is undoubtedly critically important and represents a logical extension of this work.

We plan to devote a separate future publication to this topic, which will require the use of more complex numerical models, specialized diagnostic methods, and a different data set beyond the scope of the current study.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments appropriately. I have no further concerns regarding the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1 [The authors have addressed all comments appropriately. I have no further concerns regarding the manuscript.]

 

Response 1 [Dear reviewer, we express our gratitude for reviewing this article. Your comments helped us improve it.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have taken into account most of comments. However there are 2 points that should be still clarified:

• I do not find the answer what is the difference between the proposed method and methods (atmospheric blocking criterion) offered by Tibaldi S. or Hoskins B.J.?
• correlation coefficient values should be added in Conclusion and in Abstract also.

Author Response

Comment 1 [The Authors have taken into account most of comments. However there are 2 points that should be still clarified:

I do not find the answer what is the difference between the proposed method and methods (atmospheric blocking criterion) offered by Tibaldi S. or Hoskins B.J.?]

Response 1 [Thanks for the recommendations, we have added the text on the methodology - lines 151-157.

There is also the Tibaldi-Hoskins method, which relies on its ability to objectively identify those atmospheric structures that meet the classical synoptic definition of blocking—a stationary dipole or omega-shaped disturbance that most effectively disrupts zonal transport.
The Lejeunes-Auckland method, which the authors use, has an advantage over the Tibaldi-Hoskins method in its greater simplicity and ability to identify a broader class of blocking anticyclones, particularly those that lack a pronounced dipole structure.]

Comment 2 [Correlation coefficient values should be added in Conclusion and in Abstract also.]

Response 2 [Thank you for the helpful suggestion. The resulting correlation coefficients between the number of thunderstorms and the frequency of atmospheric congestion have been added to the abstract (lines 25-27) and the conclusion (lines 486-487).]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check lines 160-164 and make some corrections (where ..... where....).

Author Response

Comment 1 [Please check lines 160-164 and make some corrections (where ..... where....).]

Response 1 [ Thanks for the comment, we've made some edits, lines 168-171]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx