Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although I appreciate the presentation and scientific significance of the study and feel that it would be published, before accepting, I request the author to address the following:

One keyword of the study is "earthquake forecast." However, that is not properly reflected in the Conclusion. The Conclusion is less informative. The Conclusion must address in detail how the current work can be of significant use for earthquake forecast. 

If this issue is addressed, I will be ready to accept this work.

Author Response

 Thank you very much for your careful study of my manuscript!

I added the conclusions section with the possibility of earthquake forecasting.

The possibility of predicting earthquakes by negative anomalies of atmospheric electricity in fair weather conditions is shown. This method can be supplemented by detection of the generation of atmospheric gravity waves on the eve of earthquakes. 
See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some small comments are attached. See attached comments in the .pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful study of my manuscript!

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Considering the revision work carried out by the authors I hereby recommend publication of the paper.