Evaluating the Impact of Planetary Boundary Layer, Land Surface Model, and Microphysics Parameterization Schemes on Simulated GOES-16 Water Vapor Brightness Temperatures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study evaluated accuracy of the numerical models regarding the reproduction of the water vapor brightness temperatures. Some combination of the land surface models, models of the cloud microphysics and planetary boundary layer are compared about the statistics of the mean bias, the mean absolute error, and the mean difference. These results will be practically useful for the model users. I just have few comments and questions on this manuscript as follows.

Firstly, I have a question concerning the generality of the discussion; why the authors selected the models used in this study. Although I understand that the authors selected the major ones, it is better to clearly describe what the authors intended to output from the comparison of these models or their combinations.

Another question is concerning the comparison of different land surface models. Is there any difference in the local climate for the use of the different land surface models, or is it negligibly small? Last question is the aerosol. How is it treated in the numerical models and is it negligible in the comparison with BT observation?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written and I have some minor comments on the presentation of results.

1. It would be better organized if the authors could have separate discussion and conclusion sections.
2. Would it be possible for the authors to add one or two table(s) to summarize the impact of the selection of MP, PBL, SL and LSM? I understand that the discussion section presents your intepretation on the impact of these schemes. However, a brief summary of the impact may better convey the findings.
3. Some texts in Figs.7, 8 and 11 could be enlarged.
4.  Abstract. line 22, 'is accessed' ?
5.  Please discussion the limition of your work and findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments are sufficiently addressed.