Vertical Structure of Heavy Rainfall Events in Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The results discussed in the manuscript represent a case study of the vertical structure of clouds that produce heavy rain in Brazil and have a place in the literature. Unfortunately, it currently far too long and rambles along on multiple topics that do not connect to each other at the end of the paper. The net results is a mix of overly detailed description of the procedures and the data with relatively little insight. I cannot recommend that this paper be published as is currently written but offer some suggestions below that would make it suitable for a new submission.
To make the manuscript more coherent, it should be divided into two papers. The first one should focus on the vertical structure of precipitation including the parts from the non-polarimetric radars, as well as the fourth case study, while the second paper should focus on the polarimetric radars. I would encourage the authors to separate these topics into two papers. The first one is largely a reduction of what was presented here.
For the first paper, the authors should shorten the description of what was done in terms of matching the radar features to the high hourly precipitation etc. The analysis is all based on Pmax which represents a small box in the radar FOV domain. The discussion should just focus on how Pmax is identified from the radar data during the period of analysis. Everything else seems extraneous.
Withing this discussion of this first part, a lot is made of the VIL. However, as defined here, VIL is simply the integrated Z (assuming a Marshall-Palmer DSD) between the Sfc and the 0° height. Based on the CFADS, the 0° heights appear more or less the same, and so do the profile shapes. I am quite convinced that had the authors used reflectivity, Z, at 2 or 2.5 km above the surface, the same conclusions would have been reached, but with much fewer assumptions. In particular, it would eliminate the need to assume that the microphysics, and DSD in particular, are the same in the various regions. The authors should complement this with the 4th case study to add some insight from the polarimetric data, even if only for one case study.
In the analysis of the vertical development of clouds, a number of statements are made about the temporal evolution of clouds. This discussions should be done more carefully to account for larger systems that are fully formed as they enter the radar domain vs those that grow within the domain. This was done better in the case study section..
Focusing the description of the procedure and analyzing the evolution of the reflectivity field would shorten the material, remove unnecessary assumptions and strengthen the findings about the structure and evolution of clouds. This would be a good paper to resubmit.
The microphysical characteristics of the clouds – starting in section 3.5.4, to me was a completely separate paper but one that needs additional material. In particular, the 3rd case study needs some additional attention to better describe the evolution of the cloud. Also, the three regions need to be compared and contrasted. What is unique about each region? And what is unique about convection in Brazil that makes is perhaps different from other regions. When finished, this would make a solid second paper.
My overall recommendation is ultimately based on the fact that the two topics together are already too long and the second part has not been developed beyond describing what polarimetric variables tell us, but without focusing on what it tells us about convection in Brazil. Separating the material into two papers will allow the authors to move forward while the add details to a potential second paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved but an editor can do this.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the detailed suggestions and comments. Your observations have been extremely valuable and have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work, and we hope that the changes made meet your expectations and elevate the standard of our research.
Please see the attachment below containing our responses to your comments. As there were no specific indications of where the changes should be made, the document presents the general comments made about the modifications. If you have any further suggestions or corrections, please let us know.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The manuscript needs revision regarding language and grammar. There are some peculiar word choices and a few grammatical errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the detailed suggestions and comments. Your observations have been extremely valuable and have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work, and we hope that the changes made meet your expectations and elevate the standard of our research.
The other reviewer submitted significant corrections regarding the structure of the manuscript, highlighting that the content could be separated into two articles. Following their suggestions, we revised the manuscript to focus solely on the analysis conducted with the reflectivity variable, and included only the fourth case study to detail the microphysics, also indicating it as a suggestion for future developments. Consequently, some analyses addressing polarimetric variables were excluded from this manuscript and will be reused for future developments. Therefore, some suggestions made by your revision were not implemented, as it was necessary to rewrite or even exclude certain paragraphs in specific sections.
Please see the attachment below containing our responses to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was considerably improved, and the changes I have suggested were thoroughly incorporated. I find the responses given adequate and therefore I recommend the publication in its current form.
