Next Article in Journal
Global Radiative Sky Cooling Potential Adjusted for Population Density and Cooling Demand
Previous Article in Journal
Smog Pollution, Environmental Uncertainty, and Operating Investment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/atmos12111377
Review Report
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characterizing Ice-Scattering Homogeneity in TRMM Microwave Imagers and Its Influence on Oceanic Rain-Rate Estimation Bias of TRMM Precipitation Radar

Atmosphere 2021, 12(11), 1377; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111377
by Andung Bayu Sekaranom 1,2,*, Emilya Nurjani 1, Sandy Budi Wibowo 3 and Hirohiko Masunaga 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Atmosphere 2021, 12(11), 1377; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111377
Submission received: 12 September 2021 / Revised: 16 October 2021 / Accepted: 18 October 2021 / Published: 21 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written. The methods, results and conclusions are specific and well presented. The work may be published in its current form.

Author Response

We highly appreciate the reviewers who have done an in-depth review of this manuscript. In accordance with input from several reviewers, there are several minor revisions that need to be added from the previous manuscript. The minor revisions in this article are:

  1. Abstract: In this revision, we shorten the abstract and highlight in it the reasons for undertaking the research presented in the article (L16-L31).
  2. Conclusion: We also add a paragraphy at the end of the conclusion section that discuss the relationship between this research and the improvement of rainfall downscaling in accordance with the input from the reviewer (L502-L510).

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very interesting paper. I think that authors should also discuss the importance of their study for a possible improving of techniques of rainfall downscaling, very useful for nowcasting in Early warning systems (see De Luca 2014, and references herein)

 

References:

De Luca D.L. (2014). Analysis and modeling of rainfall fields at different resolutions in Southern Italy. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59(8): 1536-1558, ISSN: 0262-6667, DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2014.926013 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2014.926013)

Author Response

We highly appreciate the reviewers who have done an in-depth review of this manuscript. In accordance with input from several reviewers, there are several minor revisions that need to be added from the previous manuscript. The minor revisions in this article are:

  1. Abstract: In this revision, we shorten the abstract and highlight in it the reasons for undertaking the research presented in the article (L16-L31).
  2. Conclusion: We also add a paragraphy at the end of the conclusion section that discuss the relationship between this research and the improvement of rainfall downscaling in accordance with the input from the reviewer (L502-L510).

Reviewer 3 Report

The article discusses the interesting topic of the ice-scattering homogeneity in TRMM microwave imagers. The study compares the PR-TMI rain-rate estimation differences that are influenced by precipitation organization and homogeneity.

The work is done very carefully. I highly value the paper. The introduction sufficiently presents the background of the discussed issue. The article refers to the current literature. In my opinion, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions are presented sufficiently.

The only suggestion I have is to slightly shorten the abstract (in the part concerning the description of the results) and highlight in it the reasons for undertaking the research presented in the article (expose the problems).

Author Response

We highly appreciate the reviewers who have done an in-depth review of this manuscript. In accordance with input from several reviewers, there are several minor revisions that need to be added from the previous manuscript. The minor revisions in this article are:

  1. Abstract: In this revision, we shorten the abstract and highlight in it the reasons for undertaking the research presented in the article (L16-L31).
  2. Conclusion: We also add a paragraphy at the end of the conclusion section that discuss the relationship between this research and the improvement of rainfall downscaling in accordance with the input from the reviewer (L502-L510).

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting, the methods seem correct to me, the article well written.

Author Response

We highly appreciate the reviewers who have done an in-depth review of this manuscript. In accordance with input from several reviewers, there are several minor revisions that need to be added from the previous manuscript. The minor revisions in this article are:

  1. Abstract: In this revision, we shorten the abstract and highlight in it the reasons for undertaking the research presented in the article (L16-L31).
  2. Conclusion: We also add a paragraphy at the end of the conclusion section that discuss the relationship between this research and the improvement of rainfall downscaling in accordance with the input from the reviewer (L502-L510).

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Back to TopTop