Optimization of Probability Density Functions Applicable for Hourly Rainfall
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This MS presents a study that evaluates the fitting accuracy of three theoretical functions for CCPD of hourly precipitation. This MS fits the scope of Atmosphere, and the results seems reasonable. The authors need to revise/clarify following issues before further consideration.
(1) In introduction section, it’s hard to see the motivation of this work, i.e., why the authors want to carry out this study and what’s the main contributions of this study? The authors mentioned that “there have been few studies focusing on the hourly rainfall so far” in Line 84, then in discussion section the authors should compare their findings with previous studies focusing on different time scale.
(2) The map of study area showing different regions is missing.
(3) Table 1, why some observation stations were ruled out in the study?
(4) In section 2.1 Fitting method, by using eq. 1&2, it’s assumed that all points, regardless of rainfall intensity, have the same weight in evaluating fitness. Is this reasonable, especially in engineering field?
(5) Fig 2,3&4, why only show results of region 1?
(6) What does “overfitting” mean in the MS? Is there metrics to evaluate the “overfitting”?
(7) Line 449-470. Are these discussion related to your findings?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper title:
Optimization of Probability Density Functions Applicable for 2 Hourly Rainfall
I think it is a good paper and is acceptable after minor revision.
Comments:
1. Some important numerical findings deal with the results that should be provided in the Abstract.
2. The number of keywords is too high
3. Please add the mop of the study area
3. you can use suggested references:
Zarei, A.R., 2019. Evaluation of effect of Markov order on the accuracy of drought forecasting Based on SPEI index using Markov Chain method. Watershed Engineering and Management, 11(1), pp.88-100.
5. The author should provide more information about the climatic data employed in this study. What is the percentage of data missing? How missing data was restored?
6. The conclusion is justified, but it could be extended, highlighting the advantages of the proposed method and specifying exactly what is new.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Editor-in-Chief
Atmosphere
# atmosphere-2278271
Manuscript Title: Optimization of Probability Density Functions Applicable for Hourly Rainfall
The following queries have arisen through reviewing the manuscript. Moreover, I believe that the manuscript is well organized. There are some comments that can improve the strength of the paper. Therefore, a MINOR revision is recommended for the manuscript.
Details of the comments are as follows:
Abstract:
It is recommended to provide some numerical findings of the research in the abstract.
It is better to reduce the number of keywords
Introduction:
The initial part of the introduction (Line 31-37) needs to be supported by more relevant sources.
The literature provided in the introduction section as research background could be presented chronologically from old to new ones in the text.
Provide additional explanations about the change in the behavior of distributions over the different length of recorded periods of data.
Explain the suitability of the distributions over changes in return period?
Are there any distributions that provide reliable results for precipitation data in low and higher return periods? (Based in previous literature)
Study area:
Mention some characteristics of the study area (temperature, precipitation amount, climate type)
Explain more about what criteria was used to determine the six sub-regions.
Research Methodology:
The presented formulas and methods in the Methodology section needs to be supported by more relevant sources.
Results:
In Figure 5, discuss the difference between sub-region 2 and other regions.
Mention the limitations of the approach used (if your approach is used by other researchers in other areas).
The END
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I'm satisfied with the responses and revisions. The current version can be accepted.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer.
