Evaluating the Polarimetric Radio Occultation Technique Using NEXRAD Weather Radars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached review document for comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
My primary concern with regard to English language has more to do with organization of the manuscript rather than grammatical issues. My review document includes grammatical/editorial corrections I found, but the manuscript would benefit from further English language review.
Author Response
Find attached the response letter and the manuscript with the modifications highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript present validation of Radio Occultation (RO) measurements at two linear polarisations which aim to detect heavy precipitation. The paper is well written and selection of radar data for validation of RO is well motivated. The period of the study covers 4 years which allows data accusation for statistical analysis. The study will benefit from minor clarifications and revisions as follow:
Abstract
Please add 2-3 sentences about the results from your study.
Introduction
Please rewrite and avoid extensive formula use in this section. Please add the aim of the study.
Results
Please add y-axis title on Figure 3.
Author Response
Find attached the response letter and the manuscript with the modifications highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the paper is generally well written and provides new results. However, the main results of the paper are Figure 3, which shows correlation, and Figs 5-7 showing three examples. I am recommending a better explanation of Figure 3 to justify the claim that it validates the ability of the PRO method to get good vertical structure (see comments below). While I tend to believe it does, I think it should be clearly stated in the paper. Secondly, the use of three example profiles is good but I would like to see statistical profile results, for example, the PAZ-NEXRAD difference statistics versus altitude. More suggestions are below.
In line 56 there's mention that the sensitivity of the technique to heavy precip has been validated in [5]. The authors might want to clarify what is meant by that validation versus what's mentioned here in line 115, namely, that validation in the sense of vertical structure is lacking. This would better motivate the current study. This could also be emphasized around line 71.
In line 72, instead of "peculiarity" perhaps rephrase as the advantage of having two polarizations.
Line 86: perhaps note that the first two terms are independent of polarization and so cancel.
Line 118: The term NEXRAD has been used since the 70s or 80s, as I recall, well before the WSR-88D upgrade to polarimetric. I don't think it refers to second generation of WSR-88D but rather to the next generation after the old WSR-57 radars. Please check this statement.
Line 180: are there references that provide more detail on the shape of the PAZ area shown in Figure 1?
Equations (7): please consider adding a sentence describing why a simple ratio of wavelengths converts from S to L. See next comment.
Line 236, I recommend providing a reference here that defines what's meant by "Rayleigh regime"
Line 247: please remind the reader that this is KDP derived from NEXRAD
Line 291: Is it surprising that no choice of window size gives slope ~ 1?
Line 328: Does the high correlation in Figure 3 guarantee that the vertical profiles agree? If so, why?
Line 312: The selected size is 4? Please make sure this is stated clearly.
Figures 5-7: Consider adding an RMS difference and possibly a statement of what the differences would mean in terms of rain rate profiles.
Line 385: What are the correlation coefficients between the two methods of echo top height measurement?
Author Response
Find attached the response letter and the manuscript with the modifications highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached review document for comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I have only minor comments (provided in the attached document) regarding English language quality.
Author Response
Find attached the response letter and the manuscript with the modifications highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the authors have answered my previous concerns. While Figures 3 and 4 together do help validate the vertical shape and overall magnitude of the PRO technique, I think the addition of Figure 9 is very helpful in showing the statistical behavior of the difference versus height. I think the manuscript is nearly ready for publication apart from minor concerns listed below.
- Line 134: add "where" at the start of the line, as used in regard to Equations (1) and (2).
- Line 142: Laccks connective word, also, "magnitude" to describe phase might be confusing. How about " where the units of Delta_Phi are mm, K_dp is formulated ..., and L ..." ?
- Line 162: This statement about 4 km was a bit confusing - this is just the way lat/lon is defined for the observations? Actual rays have differing h_t's?
- Line 229: maybe add "The", so that it reads "The PAZ satellite is ..."
- Line 318: change period to colon ":"
- Line 333: this seems like an abrupt transition. Is this window length part of the smoothing mentioned above and shown in Figure 2? If so, then I would make that clear. Just before this, a sliding window of 5 is mentioned. Please clarify the role of the length being chosen and connect back to Figure 2.
Line 362: change to "encompasses"
- Line 367: "except for two(three) cases ..." - this is referring to the low correlation instances in Figure 3? Perhaps add a sentence to better define these cases.
- Line 379: If still referring to Fig 4, it would be better to not have a new paragraph here.
- Line 385: change "reducing" to "reduce" ?
- Figure 5a caption: there's appears to be a typo, a repetition of "and ΔΦNEX between 0-10km".
- Line 413, "do not overcome" sounds a bit awkward. How about "are less than 1.5 mm" ?
- Line 485 and following, could add (a)-(c), (d)-(f), (g)-(i) when referring to the rows, for clarity.
- Line 500, I'm not sure about "substantiated". However, at least the choice of length 6 is not inconsistent with Figures 3 and 4.
- Figure 9 caption, what are the solid red lines?
- General: in the current version there are lot's of short paragraphs, making it harder to trace the flow.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are a few typos, lack of verb/noun agreement, etc. My guess is that this is mostly due to the short revision time in going from the original to this version.
Author Response
Find attached the response letter and the manuscript with the modifications highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
