Analysis of the Vertical Air Motions and Raindrop Size Distribution Retrievals of a Squall Line Based on Cloud Radar Doppler Spectral Density Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The scientific content of this manuscript is good and it is worthy of publication. While in general the quality of the writing is fine, there are several places where the text needs to be updated to improve the clarity of the manuscript.
General issues:
The results shown in figure 6 and the corresponding text should be moved to an earlier part of the text. This is because these results provide important context for interpreting all other results and strong motivation for the examination of this system.
I would like an additional paragraph in the conclusions that discusses the wider impact of the results, i.e comparison to prior work and potential future improvements.
Section 3.3 needs some reworking in terms of adding more detail and making sure that steps between equations are clearly elucidated.
The formatting of the paper is messy and needs to be corrected in a few places. This includes in text numbers and units, equation formatting and greek variables.
Minor Issues:
The formatting of the numberings in the authors list needs to be changed to be superscripts
I am unsure if this is an issue with the manuscript preparation or the journal processes but the citation information on the first page isn’t filled in.
Lines 15/22/28/35: replace the (1), (2), (3) and (4) separations with first, second, third and finally
Lines 18/25/27: change the -1 to a superscript
Line 21: add a space between “C” and “layer”
Line 35: The sentence starting on this line should be reworded as the length makes it hard to easily interpret. The part describing the A section on line 38 definitely needs to be reworded as this terminology is not introduced in the abstract.
Line 50: Replace “meaningful” with “important for both weather and climate research.”
Line 98: This paragraph describing the HSC-PS32 could use an additional sentence or two worth of detail.
Line 126: I feel like this sentence needs to be reworked a little bit. I don’t quite understand what is meant by the “leftmost point”.
Line 130: The sentence starting on this line could be rewritten for more clarity.
Line 135: the -1 should be superscript
Lines 148-152: I feel like more appropriate variable names than Num and pulsenum should be used, unless this convention has been clearly established in prior work.
Equation 3 looks like it could have improved formatting and clarity
Line 164: The phi variables in the text appear to not be properly added
Equation 4 there once again appears to be issues with the formatting of this equation. This includes issues with the spacing between variables. Additionally, I don’t think N(D) is defined in the text before this point.
Line 174: The paragraph here should be reworked for simplicity.
Line 215: the -1 should be superscript
Line 231: replace “is” with “are”
Line 234: issue with phi formating
Line 250: issue with phi formating
Line 256: It is unclear in this sentence exactly what is meant by inverted. The sentence should also be reworked.
Line 284-308: This section should probably be moved earlier in the text as mentioned in the general comments
Line 310: Maybe this paragraph should be in the previous section
Line 314: The sentence that starts on this line should be reworked.
Figure 7 I don’t think that the acronym OTT has been defined before this
Line 324: The sentence that starts on this line needs to be refined as it is a little unclear.
Line 332: This sentence needs to be refined.
Line 340: Is this sentence in the right place?
Line 344: I think the relative constancy of the mu variable in the CR compared to the disdrometer should be mentioned
Lines 381/388/396: I think this section would work better with (1), (2) and (3) removed
Conclusions could use more physical interpretation of the results
Line 436: This sentence should be reword.
Line 459: Replace “rationality” with “veracity”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attaches pdf
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper includes a detailed analysis of the squall passing in the Guangdong Province on May 6, 2016. Some remarks are collected in the attached file. In particular, a series of equations should be checked. Besides, there is a need to make minor corrections in the text and, possibly, in the several figures.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
