Validation of the High-Altitude Wind and Rain Airborne Profiler during the Tampa Bay Rain Experiment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully read the article “Validation of the High-Altitude Wind and Rain Airborne Pro- 2 filer (HIWRAP) during the Tampa Bay Rain Experiment” by Coto et al..  I have mixed feelings about this article. On one side it is has a straightforward goal: that of validating a very versatile and precise measurement tool with a much better validated, though apparently not more precise or accurate, one. If  I have understood the paper correctly, the evidence for this is mostly in figures 10 to 17 and relevant discussion. The authors make very convincing and simple statements about the HIWRAP result matching the radar data while differing from it at higher CAPI when the radar suffers from aliasing. Unfortunately, that is as far as my expertise goes.

Since I am a climatologist, I did not understand, or at least cannot review and/or validate, the technical engineering section of the paper where the authors describe the algorithms for interpolation and data retrieval. I fear not many climate scientists will. Perhaps I am wrong. I leave it to the editor to decide.

As to the data comparison sections of the paper, I find that it can be published in its present form. The horizontal distributions of HIWRAP precipitation rates are indeed very close to those produced by the Radar measurements and I agree with the authors that absolute values are irrelevant. Consequently, I also find the authors' conclusions, concerning the potential of the HIWRAP, reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

The manuscript provides a very thorough and detailed view on the validation of the HIWRAP during the Tampa Bay Rain Experiment, as well as on the methods developed and used for the validation of the instruments.

 

The manuscript is generally well written and presented. The research represents recent and exciting advancement, is appropriate for publication in MDPI climate journal and will certainly be of interest to the appropriate scientific community. However, my enthusiasm for the research has been dampened by aspects of the presentation and the validation of data. These issues are important, and detailed below.

 

Also, the manuscript goes into considerable detail that, while very informative, in places is somewhat unclear, discursive and verbose, such as Section 4. I encourage the authors to focus more concisely on the important results.

 

I would suggest to set the data processing developments (section 3) apart in appendices, a second paper or in supplementary material to make the paper shorter and more importantly easier to read and follow the findings of the authors.

 

These issues obstruct a more detailed consideration of the important scientific results, and until they are addressed, I cannot make a recommendation for publication, and major revisions are required. I look forward to receiving an updated manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript deals with a serendipitous observation, that occurred during the return from a HS3 hurricane flight. Althrough many results have been presented, this manuscript is lack of quantitative validation and statistics. Only maps and curves are shown. Anthor main issue is that there is no clear conslusion in the end but just some discussions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to thank the authors for the work they have done to improve their paper.

The manuscript is written better. The two appendices allow the text to be now easier for the reader.

The previous issues have mostly been addressed. Some minor revisions are required before I make a full recommendation for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript introduces a very interesting in-flight experiment by a serendipitous opportunity, the calibration of measuring data and the validation of rain rates are detailed describe. After the first review, the manuscript clearly has an improvement, through their still some contents need minor revision. Some specific comments: 1. Since this manuscript still has too many acronyms, some are confusing since their definition are not given. For example, in Table 1, “HPBW”, “PRF”, “RF”. 2. line 130, “NSCAT1 Geophysical Model Function”, “NSCAT1” has the additional “1”, Is there any specific meaning, or it just a mistake spelling? This GMF is refer to [8], which is not exist in the reference section. References 8 to 12 are all missing. 3. I suggest that, if the detailed methods described in the Appendix parts are from previous or other’s work, just simply describe and cite references. If some are author’s original work, they should be emphasized. 4. Figure 5, “NEXRAD rain reflectivity data” with color but have different unit? 5. line 251, “subjective evaluation”, line 258, “very plausible”, these words make the results less convincing. 6. Table 2, HIWRAP/NEXRAD ratio, points number 348, become larger?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx