Validation of Precipitation Type Forecasts Based on ECMWF’s Ensemble Model for Hungary
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviews/comments are embedded in the attached PDF document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your work and useful comments and suggestions. Our response id attached.
Kind regards
Istvan Ihasz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Article: Validation of Precipitation Type Forecasts Based on ECMWF's Ensemble Model
The article shows an essential discussion about the expert visualization of ensemble products and validation of precipitation type. However, a considerable lack of information has not been given, so I decided to accept with major revisions.
Decision: Major Revision
Line 9: Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) instead of NWP
Line 12: European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) instead of (ECMWF)
Line 12: What is the method used?
Line 13: What mean IFS?
Line 26: I particularly disagree with this sentence. I suggest changing "only" to another word. For example, the "best way'.
Line 36: I believe you should not compare the determinist approach against the probability approach. Both methods are helpful in different ways and perspectives.
Line 39: The authors said in the abstract that a case study would be performed. Reading this line, I understand that the authors will study three cases. After that, the authors say the respective day. I suggest rewriting.
Lines 69-70: Same comment of line 26.
Line 76: The authors should not mention that ". One of the most complex analyses of post-processing methods applied to precipitation type can be found in the Ph.D. thesis of Tamás Hirsch", but bring this discussion to the manuscript.
Line 82: This sentence was mentioned previously.
Line 89: Which cloud scheme?
Line 120: ECMWF model?
Figure 2: What do the numbers on the right side mean? The size of the hydrometeors?
Figure 4: The black contour represents Hungary? I believe each bar represents the precipitation type but is unclear in the manuscript. Also, some pallet colors are very close, and it can be challenging to interpret the precipitation type correctly.
Line 120: At this point, I think there will be more than one case study.
Line 242: What thresholds were used?
Lines 250-255: The authors should discuss the variability of the results for each lead temporal initialization.
Line 262: The Mediterranean cyclone is represented by the "M" in the synoptic chart?
Lines 292-296: The main goal of the probability charts is to make an analysis and forecast based on numbers, which means quantitative way. In this paragraph, the authors briefly discussed the probability charts. Please, describe precisely the probability values of "increasing the probability" and "decreasing the probability." How much was that? Is this significant?
Figure 12: What method was used to construct the Ensemble? The authors should mention that in the Methodology and through the discussion of the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your work and useful comments and suggestions. Our response is attached.
Kind regards
Istvan Ihasz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
None
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor and authors,
I find that the manuscript has improved substantially. The authors have corresponded satisfactorily to my suggestions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript. I would recommend the manuscript for publication.
