Direct Assimilation of Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer Clear-Sky Radiance Data and Its Impact on the Forecast of Heavy Rainfall

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent paper. In this research, RTTOV-gb was used as the observation operator, and a direct assimilation module of ground-based microwave radiometer radiances data was established in WRFDA. A comparison was made between direct assimilation and indirect assimilation using the example of heavy rainfall in Beijing. The results showed that direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer radiances data can improve the model more effectively. The article has rich content, detailed data, reasonable structure, and reliable conclusions. It is recommended to be accepted after minor modification.

 

Specific modification opinions:

(1)  The reference cited in line 60 was not numbered.

(2)  The abbreviation that appears for the first time in line 75 is not given its full name.

(3)  The first letter of the title in line 80 is not capitalized. 

(4)  The characters in Figures 1, 2, and 3 are too small. 

(5)  Please provide more details on indirect assimilation. Have the authors conducted observation error statistics on the retrieved profiles for each station and updated them in the assimilation system? Has the temperature and humidity data from all altitudes (including those with lower accuracy) been assimilated? 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1's Comments Point by Point are in the attached manuscript review document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks, the authors prepared this manuscript. But I have several questions for you. And you need to go back to check and provide sufficient evidence or further information.

1. Fig. 9, the FNL, CTRL, and DIR_DA show similar temperature distributions. But why MWR_DA shows significantly different results? From my experience, it's impossible. Based on your experiment design, "ALL" DA starts at 0900Z 09/08/2019. You only assimilate 7 GMWR stations. Is it possible to create a result like Fig. 9c? It is different.

2. Following (1), Fig. 10 shows other different results in Fig. 10d; the moisture in 850mb is too smooth in 10d than the other two exp. (CTRL, MWR_DA). Fig. 10d looks like directly assimilated data in the FNL. I highly recommend you need to check it. And provide "ALL" DA experiment results every two hours to prove that.

3. In Fig 11, the sounding profile looks similar, But the DA results are different in Fig. 9 & 10—especially the "smooth" results. Please check and provide the evidence. Also, I don't believe only seven stations can cause such a huge environmental increment outside the domain, where NO data has been assimilated. 

4. Again, Fig. 12d shows too smooth result than CTRL and MWR_DA. Please explain why? Because you only show the small domain result. 

5. Please check your model configurations carefully. 

So, I will recommend this manuscript go to major revision and need to provide more evidence and further information.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2's Comments Point by Point are in the attached manuscript review document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments and suggestions for the authors are in the attached manuscript review document, rev_2530411.docx.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

All comments on the English and on corrections to make are in the comments to authors document, attached.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3's Comments Point by Point are in the attached manuscript review document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper focuses on direct data assimilation of GMWR data in the numerical weather model WRF. It is a well written paper with clear steps toward the conclusions. It can be published after some minor revisions:

Line 15: “ ...errors cannot… “à   “…errors and cannot…”

Line 17: …can avoid the issue…” à “.. can avoid this issue…”

Line 45: “ The same as…” à “As with…”

Line 48: “..cannot easily be…”  à “ …cannot be easily…”

Line 51: “…extracting…”à “…extract…”

Line 59-60:  “ Although…Jacobians”, purely technical terms, use some more general terms.

Line 67: “…assessed. And… “ à“…assessed and… “

Line 68-69: “…presents the case…” à  “…presents a case…”

Line 78: “Level-1 data (BT) and Level-2 data…”à“Level-1  (BT) and Level-2 …”

Line 74: “..data is ...” à“..data are ...”

Line 83: Explain the term BP.

Line 85: “…has 47… “à “…have 47…”

Line 90: «…study is.. “ à”…study are.. “

Line 91: «…which is.. “ à”…which  are.. “

Figure 2 : Increase font size in plots , impossible to read

Line 175 “..trend..” use another word, possible “behavior”

Lines 200 and 201” : Improper use of word “ innovations”

Lines 221 to 231 and figure 4: Use of word “increments” in ambiguous

Lines 245 - 246 : “…precipitation occurred… “ à“…precipitation that occurred… “

Lines 247-248: “…which located ahead the left..” à“…located ahead and left..”

Line 262 : “ …rainfall located…”à “… rainfall are located…”

Line 281-282:  “…but….parameterization.”à  “…but in d02 cumulus parameterization is switched off”

Line 294: “…since …2019” à”…from 0006UTC 9 August 2019  onwards.”

Lines 353-355 : The sentence is not true according to plot. Rephrase.

Lines 370-372: Difficult to understand rephrase.

Line 395: ”…focusing…”--> “…focus…”

Line 407: “…to the CTRL test. Firsty, both…” à “ ..CTRL. Both…”

Line 408: ”…accurate to reality…”à” …accurate.”

Lines 411-412 : “Secondly, comparing to  CTRL’s…”à “..Compared to CTRL’s…”

Comments presented in comments and suggestions above

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 4's Comments Point by Point are in the attached manuscript review document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the authors' reply to my previous comments.

I only ask you to update one more thing in your manuscript.

1. please correct your Fig. 12d.  The title should be "DIR_DA" instead of "MWR_DA".

 

Author Response

Thanks for the authors' reply to my previous comments.

I only ask you to update one more thing in your manuscript.

1. please correct your Fig. 12d.  The title should be "DIR_DA" instead of "MWR_DA".

 

Response : Thank you for your reminder. I have correct my Fig. 12d. title from "MWR_DA" to  "DIR_DA" in the revised draft in line 440.it shows like Fig. Q1-1 in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf