Impacts of Aerosol Orographic Precipitation Interaction Associated with Western Disturbances over India Using Satellite Observations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Impacts of Aerosol Orographic Precipitation Interaction Associated with Western Disturbances over India using Satellite Observations” for publication in the Journal of “Water”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Number wise answers to their specific comments are as follows.
Response to Reviewer#1 Comments
Comment 1: The authors analyzed only from 12 February to 28 February 2016. There are many cases where the authors can get such behavior and associations presented in the manuscript. Therefore, Authors should take decade long period and identify such events of western disturbance and do the analysis for many cases. Then the analysis and results will be statistically significant and sound. Just for one event, authors cannot conclude
Response: As per your comment, I have analyzed only February 2016. In my current research I couldn’t able to analyze long period, but I add lots of research on Orographic Precipitation Interaction on February 2016. In my future work, I will consider the long period events.
Comment 2: The authors can also include the CALIPSO data of the vertical profile of aerosol and cloud parameters to draw better conclusions on their objectives.
Response: I have added the details regarding your comments in the revised manuscript under Section 3
Comment 3: The captions of many figures are wrong. The plot is different, and the authors have written different captions. e.g., in Figure 2. The plot is for RH, the authors have mentioned temperature.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 4: The wind was taken at 1000 hpa (near surface), which cannot be a good representative of cloud-level heights.
Response: We have taken the near surface wind speed is 900hpa in the revised manuscript.
Comment 5: The unit of rainfall is mentioned as mm day-1. It should be mm/day or mm day-1. The winds’ unit should be ms-1 or m/s.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 6: Section 4.2, AOD (0.412–0.47m)? The “m” should be “μm”. What is the meaning of writing the range with AOD? Is AOD averaged between the ranges of wavelength?
Response: I have changed the “μm” to m in the revised manuscript. AOD values are typically provided at specific wavelengths or channels, and they represent the aerosol loading and optical properties at those particular wavelengths. The values are not averaged between the ranges of wavelengths but are specific to the chosen wavelength or channel.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors use reanalysis data, satellite observations, combined with backward trajectories to analyze aerosol topographic precipitation interactions associated with disturbances in western India，inferred the role of aerosols in precipitation from the relationship between temperature, humidity, wind field, and various cloud parameters and aerosol optical thickness. Backward trajectories are mainly used to understand aerosol transport sources. The discussion of this manuscript is including not only the possible mechanisms of this interaction, but also the uncertainties in detail. The overall structure of the manuscript is complete and readable. The downside is that, due to the absence of a quantitative simulation process, qualitative relationships between different variables are discussed throughout the study without being able to present quantitative results or control for differences in the sensitivity of the experiments, which is an important hindrance to the mechanistic analysis throughout the study. It is suggested that mechanism-based discussions and quantitative analyses be included in subsequent studies. In addition, the influence of aerosols on precipitation is complex, and the distribution of aerosols or CCN in clouds can lead to local perturbations in cloud microphysical properties, resulting in increased uncertainty in precipitation. The discussion of the interaction between aerosols and topographic precipitation using only the aerosol optical thickness obtained from satellite observations is slightly inadequate, and further in-cloud observations should be added to support the authors' arguments.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#2 Comments
Comment 1: The authors use reanalysis data, satellite observations, combined with backward trajectories to analyze aerosol topographic precipitation interactions associated with disturbances in western India, inferred the role of aerosols in precipitation from the relationship between temperature, humidity, wind field, and various cloud parameters and aerosol optical thickness. Backward trajectories are mainly used to understand aerosol transport sources. The discussion of this manuscript is including not only the possible mechanisms of this interaction, but also the uncertainties in detail. The overall structure of the manuscript is complete and readable. The downside is that, due to the absence of a quantitative simulation process, qualitative relationships between different variables are discussed throughout the study without being able to present quantitative results or control for differences in the sensitivity of the experiments, which is an important hindrance to the mechanistic analysis throughout the study. It is suggested that mechanism-based discussions and quantitative analyses be included in subsequent studies. In addition, the influence of aerosols on precipitation is complex, and the distribution of aerosols or CCN in clouds can lead to local perturbations in cloud microphysical properties, resulting in increased uncertainty in precipitation. The discussion of the interaction between aerosols and topographic precipitation using only the aerosol optical thickness obtained from satellite observations is slightly inadequate, and further in-cloud observations should be added to support the authors' arguments.
Response: I have added the detailed results and discussions of Aerosol-cloud-precipitation Interaction, Aerosol-Rainfall relationship, Relationship between relative humidity and surface temperature based on clean and dirty days, and Analysis of aerosol-cloud–rainfall association with western disturbances during February 2016 is investigated over the west coast of India and the adjacent Arabian region and also included the in-cloud observations such as cloud particle imaging (droplets or ice crystals) and Cloud Microphysics (cloud condensation nuclei).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
See an attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#3 Comments
Comment 1: On p. 1, title: ‘on’ should be inserted after ‘Impacts of Aerosol’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 2: On p. 1, 10 lines from the bottom: ‘fog and frost and rainstorms,’ should be ‘fog, frost, rainstorms,’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 3: On p. 1, 4 lines from the bottom: ‘cloud computing’ should be ‘cloud competing’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 4: On p. 2, 3rd line of 2nd paragraph: ‘it able’ should be ‘it is able’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 5: On p. 2, 5th line of 2nd para: ‘atmosphere aerosols’ should be ‘atmospheric aerosols’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 6: On p. 2, 2nd line of 4th para: what is ‘the length’?
Response: Cloud droplet length refers to the size or diameter of individual water droplets present in a cloud. Cloud droplets are tiny liquid particles suspended in the air within a cloud. The size of these droplets can vary widely, ranging from a few micrometers to tens of micrometers in diameter.
Comment 7: On p. 2, 9th line of 5th para: the sentence beginning “During the monsoon season” has no verb
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 8: On p. 3, 5th line of 1st para of Sec. 3: the authors cite ‘Kumar and Jain, 2012’. The format for cited paper is different from [35] [36] on p. 2. The format should be unified from this paper onward.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 9: On p. 3, 4th line of 2nd para of Sec. 3: What is ‘(~6955)’?
Response: I have removed that value in the revised manuscript
Comment 10: On p. 3, 7th line of 2nd para of Sec. 3: spell out ‘ISMR’. Also, ‘by various’ should be ‘various’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 11: On p. 4, lines 1 – 4: this sentence does not make any sense
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 12: On p. 4, 1st line of 2nd para: ‘g m-2’ should be ‘g m-2’. This comment is applied throughout the text.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 13: On p. 4, 11th line of 2nd para: ‘1.0–3.0 m’ should be ‘1.0–3.0 m’. This comment is applied throughout the text as well.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 14: On p. 4, 2nd line of 3rd para: ‘0.25° 0.25°’ should be ‘0.25° × 0.25°’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 15: On p. 4, 7-8th lines of 4th para: the author’s state, “The range in the RH fields and ERA-Interim temperature is 0.4 percent and, 0.05, accordingly (Noh et al., 2016).” Why the range for RH and temperature are so narrow
Response: The range in the relative humidity (RH) fields and ERA-Interim temperature can appear narrow due to several factors, including the specific dataset being used, the resolution of the data, and the particular region or time period being analyzed.
Comment 16: On p. 4, Table 1: the authors do not cite Table 1 in the text
Response: The citation of table 1 is added to the above paragraph of the table.
Comment 17: On p. 5, 2nd line of 2nd para: ‘considered. Based on’ should be ‘considered based on’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 18: On p. 5, 4th line of Sec. 4: ‘2(d)’ should be ‘Figure 2d’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 19: On p. 5, 5-6th lines of Sec. 4: the authors state, “A comparison is made with Era-30-year Interim's mean climatology of wind field and temperature (1985-2015).” This sentence is a repetition of the above sentence.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 20: On p. 6, 1-3th lines of 1st para: the author’s state, “In the pre-mature stage, a heat wave was forming, (Fig. 2(a)) with maximum temperatures for daily ranging from 32 to 36°C in the afflicted area. The optimum thirty-year mean temperatures (Fig. 2(d)) are in the 34–36°C range.” However, the temperature in Fig. 2d is lower than that in Fig. 2a.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript.
Comment 21: On p. 6, 1st line of 2nd para: ’26°C’ should be ’36°C’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 22: On p. 6, 8th line of 2nd para: ‘Figure 2b’ should be ‘Figure 2d’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 23: On p. 7, 1st line of caption for Fig. 3: ‘temperature (°C)’ should be ‘relative humidity (%)’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 24: On p. 7, 3-5th line of 1st para: the authors state, “The winds of easterly are comparatively stronger in the western and south-east areas between climatic events in India. (Figure 3).” However, the wind of easterly is not stronger in the western area.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 25: On p. 7, 6th line of 1st para: should ‘precipitation event’ be ‘relative humidity’?
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 26: On p. 8, 3rd line of caption for Fig. 4: the authors state, “moisture flux convergence of vertically integrated (kg m–1 s–1)…” However, the unit of moisture flux convergence of vertically integrated should be ‘kg m–2 s–1’ throughout the text.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 27: On p. 8, Fig. 4: the value of color bar seems larger 3 or 4 orders in comparison to usual values. Also, the vertically integrated moisture flux convergence is always positive. Why do the positive bias exist?
Response: The vertically integrated moisture flux convergence (VIMFC) is generally positive during the Indian summer season due to the prevailing meteorological conditions and large-scale atmospheric patterns that characterize this time of year. Here are a few factors that contribute to the positive VIMFC in the Indian summer season including Moisture transport, Convective processes, and Orographic lifting. These combined factors create a favorable environment for moisture convergence during the Indian summer season, leading to a positive VIMFC.
Comment 28: On p. 8, 2nd line of 1st para: ‘and near-surface temperature’ should be removed
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 29: On p. 8, 3-4th lines of 1st para: the authors state, “It's calculated in the same way Panda et al. (2015) did, by taking into account among 500 and 1000 hPa specific humidity as well as the related horizontal wind components.”, whereas they also state, “The description of NMVMF is the horizontal rate of flow of moisture (water vapor, cloud liquid, and cloud ice), per meter across the 3 flow, for a column of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere.” At the 3rd line on p. 9. Which is correct on the range of integration? ‘among 500 and 1000 hPa’ or ‘from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere’?
Response: Among 500 and 1000hPa is correct range of integration.
Comment 30: On p. 8, the last sentence of 2nd para: the author’s state, “In the dissipating phase, higher easterly winds aided moisture transfer from the neighboring Atlantic (Figs. 3 & 4(c)).” Why is ‘Atlantic’ related to the easterly winds?
Response: The term "Atlantic" is related to the easterly winds due to the presence of a prevailing wind system known as the Trade Winds. The Trade Winds are a consistent pattern of easterly winds that blow across the tropical regions of the Earth, roughly between the latitudes of 30 degrees north and south of the equator.
Comment 31: On p. 9, 6-8th lines of 1st para: the author’s state, “The calculations (Figures 5b and c) revealed significantly greater rainfall values (>16mm/day) than the TRMM observations (Figure 5a).” Are all Figs. 5a, 5b, and 5c the TRMM observations?
Response: In all figures 5a, 5b, and 5c, the rainfall variation is depicted using TRMM data with a resolution of 0.25°
Comment 32: On p. 9, 2nd para: the 2nd paragraph beginning from “A positive CF level analyzes …” should be moved to Section 4.3.1.
Response: I have moved this para to the Section 4.3.1 in the revised manuscript
Comment 33: On p. 9, 1-2nd lines of 2nd para: the authors state, “A positive CF level analyzes that the effect is warming, whereas a negative value suggests that the effect is cooling.” Why does CF have a negative value?
Response: Cloud fraction measurements may be based on satellite imagery or remote sensing observations. In some cases, clouds can be smaller than the resolution of the instrument or observation, resulting in a fractional cloud cover. When these fractional cloud cover values are averaged over a larger area, it is possible to obtain negative cloud fractions.
Comment 34: On p. 9, the last sentence of 2nd para: ‘between signifies’ should be ‘signifies between’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 35: On p. 10, in the caption for Fig. 6: write ‘(a), (b), (c), and (d)’ to specify which panel is which.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 36: On p. 10, 4th line of 1st para: ‘at ground level’ should be ‘above ground level’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 37: On p. 10, 2nd line of 2nd para: ‘winds.’ should be ‘winds’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 38: On p. 11, caption for Fig. 7: ‘500 meters above ground range’ should be ‘500, 1000, and 1500 meters above ground level’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 39: On p. 11, 2nd line of 1st para: ‘0.412–0.47m’ should be ‘’. Also this comment is applied throughout the text.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 40: On p. 12, caption for Fig. 8: “Ågström’ should be Ångström’. Also explain ‘0.412 to 0.47’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 41: On p. 12, 5th of 1st para: ‘with a range of 0.4 to 1.7’ should be ‘with an AE range of 0.4 to 1.7’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 42: On p. 12, 4th of 2nd para: ‘mature and phases’ should be ‘mature phases’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 43: On p. 12, 2nd line of 1st para in Sec. 4.3: ’3.1, 3.2, and 3.3’ should be ‘4.1 and 4.2’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 44: On p. 12, 1st line of 1st para in Sec. 4.3.1: the authors state, “… Cloud fraction (fc)…”, whereas they state, “…CTT (K), CF,,,” in Sec. 4.3. The notation should be unified, i.e., fc or CF
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 45: On p. 13, 2nd line: ‘region.’ should be ‘region’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 46: On p. 13, 3rd line of 1st para: ‘an enhancement in fc ranges of AOD’ should be rephrased.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 47: On p. 13, 3rd line of 1st para of Sec. 4.3.2: ‘Vogelmann & Lubin, 201;1Penner et al., 2004 ;’ should be ‘Vogelmann & Lubin, 2011; Penner et al., 2004’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 48: On p. 13, 6th line of 1st para of Sec. 4.3.2: ‘(Figure 9)’ should be ‘Figure 10’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 49: On p. 14, 1st line of 1st para: the authors state, “The related COD values in the dissipating phase, on the other hand, CTT does not change when they grow to 42 (fig. 10(b)).” Rephrase this sentence.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 50: On p. 14, 4th line of 3rd para: ‘Figure 10(c)’ should be ‘Figure 10d’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 51: On p. 15, Fig. 11: ‘(c) MODIS AOD’ should be ‘(c) MODIS wind’?
Response: In Figure 11, we have described the Aerosol-rainfall relationship so we have mentioned MODIS AOD
Comment 52: On p. 15, Fig. 11: there are no values for color bar in Figs. 11b and 11d
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 53: On p. 15, 2nd line of figure caption for Fig. 11: ‘TRM’ should be ‘TRMM’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 54: On p. 15, 2nd line of 1st para of Sec. 4.5: ‘References therein and Freud et al., 2001’ should be ‘Freud et al., 2001 and references therein’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 55: On p. 15, 6th line of 1st para of Sec. 4.5: ‘figure.12’ should be ‘Figure 12’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 56: On p. 16, 2nd line of caption for Fig. 12: the authors state, “(a) Mean liquid-phase effective radius profiles as shown by MODIS (Re)”. However, above 100hPa, water clouds should be glaciated due to temperature < -40°C. So ‘liquid-phase’ cannot exist.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 57: On p. 16, 3rd line of caption for Fig. 12: the authors state, “… among high (red) & low (blue) pressure loading states of aerosol …”. Should ‘(red)’ be ‘(orange)’? Should ‘(blue)’ be ‘(green)’?
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 58: On p. 16, 4-5th lines of caption for Fig. 12: the authors state, “Variation in mean levels of ice-phase (pink) and liquid-phase (black) water content…”. Should ‘(pink)’ be ‘(blue)’? Should ‘(black)’ be ‘(red)’?
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 59: On p. 16, 5-6th lines of caption for Fig. 12: what does ‘high AOD–low AOD’ mean?
Response: I have explained the details about high AOD–low AOD in the revised manuscript under Section 4.5
Comment 60: On p. 16, Fig. 12: Figs. 12b and 12c are not cited in the text. Cite them somewhere in the text.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 61: On p. 16, 1st line of 1st para: the authors state, “Figure 12a illustrates that the Re in clouds generated under higher AOD levels at the cloud base liquid droplets were smaller (6 m),…”. However, ‘under higher AOD levels, liquid droplets are larger in Fig. 12a. So the legend in Fig. 12a should be ‘the other way around’, i.e., ‘orange line’ is ‘High AOD’, and green line is ‘Low AOD’?
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 62: On p. 16, 4th line of 1st para: ‘10 m (100 hPa)1’ should be ’10 m (100 hPa)-1’ and throughout the text.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 63: On p. 16, 6-7th lines of 1st para: the authors state, “It's also important to note that in moderate AOD situations (50 hPa), the altitude variation among the cloud base as well as initiation of smaller warm rain…”. As pointed out in the item #56, at 50 hPa, ‘warm rain’ cannot occur due to the fact that the temperature is less than -40°C.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 64: On p. 16, section title: the authors state, “4.6. Relationship between relative humidity and surface temperature based on clean and dirty days”. This section title does not accurately express the content of this section.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 65: On p. 16, 5th line of 1st para of Sec. 4.6: ‘RH=500hPa’ should be ‘RH at 500hPa’
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 66: On p. 16, 6th line of 1st para of Sec. 4.6: ‘Surface temperature=600hPa’ should be ‘Temperature at 600hPa’? Otherwise, Surface temperature=600hPa’ should be ‘Surface Temperature’?.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 67: On p. 17, 1st line: the same comment as the item #66 is applied. Also, what is ‘Pa/s’?
Response: Pa/s stands for Pascal per second, which is the unit of measurement for dynamic viscosity or absolute viscosity in the International System of Units (SI). Pascal (Pa) is the unit of pressure, and second (s) is the unit of time.
Comment 68: On p. 17, 4th line: ‘50 %< RH<7%’ should be ‘50 %< RH<70%’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 69: On p. 17, 1st line of 1st para: ‘Fig. 4a and fig b’ should be ‘Figs. 13a and 13b’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 70: On p. 17, 3 lines from the bottom of 1st para: ‘Figure 4e, f’ should be ‘Figure 13e, f’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 71: On p. 17, Figure 13a: ‘RE < 50%’ should be ‘RH < 50%’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 72: On pp. 17-18, Figure 13: (a) – (f) should be inserted to each panel.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 73: On p. 18, 3-4th line in the caption for Fig. 13: the authors state, “The mean is shown by the magenta colored diamond.” However, there is no magenta-colored diamond in the figure.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 74: On p. 18, 9th line of the 1st para: ‘(2019)’ should be after ‘Haslett et al
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 75: On p. 18, 5-7th line of the 2st para of Sec. 4.7: the authors state, “A decline in AOD was shown to be related to heavy rainfall and deeper clouds, Under certain meteorological circumstances (Fig. 14).”However, this statement contradicts the fact that precipitation on dirty day is more than precipitation on clear day (Figs. 13e and 13f).
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 76: On p. 19, 1-3rd lines of the 1st para: the authors state, “A rise in RH, on the other hand, was inversely proportional to the amount of aerosol in the air, implying that overcast or rainy conditions were related to reduce aerosol loading.” The same comment as the item #75 is applied to this sentence.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 77: On p. 19, 10-11th lines of the 2nd para: the authors state, “The heavy winds velocity (with over 350 hPa) tends to disrupt the cloud forming activity (Fig. 11).” However, CF and RF are correlated positively with the wind speed at altitudes over 350 hPa (Fig. 14).
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 78: On p. 19, 11-13th lines of the 2nd para: the authors state, “Three main climatic factors were detected: horizontal wind shear (within 500 and 200 hPa), RH as well as geopotential height (under 500 hPa) affecting rainfall and cloud and…” However, there is no ‘horizontal wind shear’ in Fig. 14
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 79: On p. 20, 3rd line: ’19-24oN and 80-90oE’ should be ‘19-24°N and 80-90°E’ and throughout the text as well.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 80: On p. 20, 4th line of the 5th para: ‘analyze’ should be ‘analysis of’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 81: On p. 21, Reference 14: no ‘Publisher’
Response: The related content is taken from Atmospheric aerosols, this the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Comment 82: On p. 21, References 16 and 17: no ‘pages’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 83: On p. 22, References 25, 35, 36, 38, and 39: no ‘pages’.
Response: I have done the correction in the revised manuscript
Comment 84: I suggest that the authors have a colleague who is fluent in English edit the paper.
Response: I have double checked the manuscript and correct the errors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors respond to the questions and I recommend publishing it in its current version.
Author Response
Response for Reviewer
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Impacts of Aerosol Orographic Precipitation Interaction Associated with Western Disturbances over India using Satellite Observations” for publication in the Journal of “Water”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Number wise answers to their specific comments are as follows.
Response to Reviewer#1 Comments
Comment 1: Are the results clearly presented?
Response: As per your comment, I have improved the result section in the revised manuscript under Section 4.8
Comment 2: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response: As per your comment, I have double checked the manuscript and corrects the errors
Reviewer 3 Report
See an attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response for Reviewer
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Impacts of Aerosol Orographic Precipitation Interaction Associated with Western Disturbances over India using Satellite Observations” for publication in the Journal of “Water”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Number wise answers to their specific comments are as follows.
Response to Reviewer#3 Comments
Comment 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response: As per your comment, I have double checked the manuscript and corrects the errors
