A Method for Rainfall Detection and Rainfall Intensity Level Retrieval from X-Band Marine Radar Images
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Formal note: This article is missing the Objective, Discussion and Future Work sections.
Essential note:
Statistical conclusions are made based on data obtained in one place for an unspecified time interval. It is unclear how this statistics will change when the observation site and observation conditions, as well as the observation tool, change. This is not revealed in the article submitted for review.
For example, the radar of the range indicated in the article will react differently to different sizes of raindrops (it is different depending on the weather season), respectively, the images received from the radar will also be different. Accordingly, the estimate of rain intensity in different seasons is likely to change. The article does not show how this parameter is taken into account when calculating the rain intensity.
The phenological approach presented in the article does not represent scientific value. A physical based model would have scientific value. The article is of some practical interest, however, the article lacks or omits significant properties and characteristics of the object under study, which casts doubt on the repeatability of the presented experiment in other conditions.
The authors should significantly revise the article, substantiating mathematically or statistically the independence of the selected approaches and methods from the observation parameters and equipment.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval of this article. We have updated the manuscript, including objective, discussion and future work, and replied to your comments.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is dedicated to the question how information obtained from radar images - here rain and rain intensity - can be improved. The chosen approach is well presented and the results obtained prove that an added value is achievable. A more in-depth discussion of the physical background of the methodology would be desirable, but is not strictly necessary taking into account the current number of pages. However, the need to make minor revision of the article is seen.
Eqation 4: the counter j should start also with zero.
The font size of all formula characters should not change in the text and should not be set lower or higher than the other words in the text. For example Fig. 2 vs. Fig.3 or consider Fig. 8
Equation 6 is confused by the representation "rain - contaminated image" or "rain - free image" by using a minus sign. It would be better here to use a hyphen.
In line 300 to 306 it is mentioned that abnormal values should be removed. Is this done empirically or how is a distinction made between regular abnormal values?
The rain gauge value at the radar site is used for rain intensity validation. As is well known, in the rarest cases it can be assumed that the rain intensity is homogeneous in the field of view of a radar. At least this validation uncertainty should be addressed in the conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval of this article. We have updated the manuscript and replied to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors. I am satisfied with the answers.
