Impacts of Urbanization and Its Parameters on Thermal and Dynamic Fields in Hangzhou: A Sensitivity Study Using the Weather Research and Forecasting Urban Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      Hypothesis needs to be address clearly and also it reflects in discussion section too.

2.      Literature review part is needed to be elaborated more; It is highly recommended to extend the literature review, including scientific papers published in highly ranked journals indexed in the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science and Scopus databases

3.      The paper does not contain a scientific discussion, which is essential to properly understand the consequences of your research. The discussion must include explanation about how this research can contribute to the study, which is already a large pool. Secondly, Results and Discussion sections should be separated. 

4.      Keywords should not be the repetitions of the title words, please find such words which are not in the title, this way search engines of the web will find your manuscript with higher probability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is generally good.

1. The English language can be largely improved. For example, 'before' in line 95 is not a proper word in the sentence.

2. The initial time for the simulation can be one day before the target date, since a long enough time of warm-up is required for the WRF model.

The quality of English is not good enough. More importantly, the logical relationships among the sentences in each paragraph are poor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article studies the thermal and dynamical effects in relation to urbanization based on a single rainfall event in Hangzhou, China. The author did a good job simulating 24 tests with different combinations of physical schemes. The authors also provided detailed results and comparison of their model runs. This article contributes to the methodology of more refined weather simulation and forecasting. On the other hand, I have a few suggestions and comments (listed below) for the authors to consider to improve the current version of the article before publication.

 

1. This article is acronym-rich due to its technical nature. I would suggest the authors go through the manuscript and spell out the acronyms the first time they are used.

 

2. Figure 2b, describe the meaning of LR, HR, CO in the legend.

 

3. Overall the image quality of the figures is not very crisp. While some of the figures are OK and legible given the current image quality, there are figures that need further attention to make them more legible: in specific, Figure 2b and Figure 4a3-d3.

 

4. Table 2 Group III SEN3/SEN4, I believe the shape of rooftops vary, what is the reasoning of using roof width rather than roof area?

 

5. Figure 3, please explain why the 1.5 h shift between simulation and observation? Why not a fixed time for simulation and observation?

 

6. Line 231, why ?̅ and ?̅ are described here but not used in equations (3) and (4)?

 

7. Table 4: it seems to me that the Threat Scores (TS) presented in this table are not the same TS defined in Equation (2).

 

8. Figure 5: consider highlighting the line of the control run m16p8s4u2 in Figure5a-d as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf