A Stochastic Procedure for Temporal Disaggregation of Daily Rainfall Data in SuDS Design
, Paola Bianucci 2, Ivan Gabriel-Martin 2, Enrica Caporali 1 and Luis Garrote 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see letter attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. Based on these observations the manuscript has been deeply and completely reviewed. In the revision of the manuscript all the issues pointed out by the reviewer have been addressed. Our response letter is attached as a .docx file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read with interest the manuscript which in my opinion is a thorough investigation of a stochastic rainfall generator, with emphasis placed on some specific rainfall features. In particular, the Florence rainfall time series, with its fine temporal resolution, is appropriate for the problem at hand. The manuscript is well written and the ideas are clear, worth of investigation and are communicated clearly. I have some minor comments; please see below:
- The authors state multiple times that the “simulated sub-hourly rainfall series show better performance than observed daily rainfall for the Florence dataset”. It is not clear what this means, given that a simulation cannot be compared to observations with respect to some performance metrics.
- Furthermore the authors state that “by applying the proposed methodology, probabilistic design and uncertainty analysis can be developed, unlike usual practice where deterministic results are obtained.”. This statement is not accurate, in my opinion, given the variety of existing stochastic rainfall generators.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. Based on these observations the manuscript has been deeply and completely reviewed. In the revision of the manuscript all the issues pointed out by the reviewer have been addressed. Our response letter is attached as a .docx file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing the review comments.
In Table 2 legend and entries there is no mention about the use of 15 minutes times-steps data. Your comment on the table is as follows:
“Table 2 shows results of MAE, RSR and PBIAS statistical indices, calculated applying equations 1, 2 and 3, using errors between median simulated data and observed data with 15 minutes time-step, as well as errors between observed data with 24 hours and 15 minutes time-steps...."
The wording of this paragraph is confusing, because it seems like you are comparing 24 hours and 15 minutes time-steps data...
It would be good to indicate this detail in the table legend and clarify that the data have beed aggregated to 24 hours and to 12 hours.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the anonymous Reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions. Based on these observations, the manuscript was revised. The issues pointed out by Reviewer #1 were carefully addressed. Point-by-point responses to reviewer comments are provided in the following paragraphs, together with the specific information on the modifications introduced in the new version of the manuscript. We do hope the reviewers find the revised manuscript worthy of publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
