Evaluation of Numerous Kinetic Energy-Rainfall Intensity Equations Using Disdrometer Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Figure 1 needs improvement,

- description ii in Figure 1 is unclear; please correct; suggests that the authors used unsupervised learning methods for classification, what methods were used is not included in the paper,

- the authors provide a series of equations, for the area analysed, but what is the practical implication of this ???? the influence of local conditions on the values of empirical coefficients in the model is not given, no similar measurement points are identified, at least a hierarchical cluster analysis should be performed, 

- the workload is large, but in such a magazine as Remote Sensing it seems to me that the authors, basing on Fig. 1, should make a classification of areas and provide similar areas, the influence of geographic conditions on estimated coefficients in the models should be determined, and it should be completed

- in table 2 the authors give a number of works, but the conditions for the application of these models are missing, to what extent they can be applied, then the results obtained in the work can be compared with others,

- confirmation of the above shortcomings, is that the authors try to explain the different matching of simulation results to measurements, which takes place in the discussion chapter,

 

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for your time and effort in evaluating our work. We have tried to answer your questions and enhanced the quality of the manuscript based on your suggestion. We hope this answer report could meet your requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Evaluation of 27 Kinetic Energy-Rainfall Intensity Equations Using Disdrometer Data  

L.N. Van, X.-H. Le, G.V. Nguyen, M. Yeon, D.T.T. May, and G. Lee  
RS 2078443

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions

This paper examines the accuracy and suitability of KE-rainfall expressions, and suggests relationships for a site in Korea.  This is a worthwhile contribution.

There are places in the manuscript that need clarification, however, in both the text and figures.  Moreover, this manuscript needs various English usage and grammar corrections throughout.  Thus, and thus Remote Sensing should assign an English proofreader to correct the errors where they appear.

Example: The first sentence, lines 12-13.
"Rainsplashes, the first stage of water-induced soil erosion, separates soil particles from  
topsoil surface."

This should be: "Rainsplashes...erosion, separate soil particles from the topsoil surface."

Example, line 16: Correction: "Therefore, this study aims to compare...". Use the present tense for presenting the study.

Line 18 is another example: "...we also propose... and the spatial distribution is discussed".


Specific questions and corrections are listed below.

l= line number

l. 51
Suggest writing out the acronyms of these models when they are first presented. It will help readers better understand what the models are about.

Fig. 1: Correction: "...the results from Steps iii and iv...".

l. 111
Correction: "10-second intervals".
Again, this manuscript must be proofread to correct such errors.

l. 120
Correction: "...producing an inflated, abnormally-high intensity value."

l. 171
Correction: "...precipitation is 1,050 mm."

l. 175
Correction: "...beam (Figure 3)."

l. 203-204
Please state what the different colors of the circles in the plots represent. Also, explain why you are showing this yellow line: why is this presented? Why is it significant?

Should the author's name for the paper here be "Van Dijk et al."? Please correct if so.

l. 207-208
What is the value of R2 that is needed for a result to be accurate? Please state in the text.

l. 208
What does "haft" mean here?  This word does not make sense. Should this be "half"?  Clarify or correct.

l. 213
Please tell/remind the reader that EXP9 was derived from observations in the Cape Verde Islands.
That site has a very different environment from Korea, even though the performance of EXP9 appears good.

l. 231
For this line and the Tab. 5, state what threshold the "low" R2 values are less than. Is it .10? .05?

l. 238-239
Please state why the yellow curve is significant and is included.
Also, state what the different colors of circles mean.
Finally, should the name here be "Van Dijk et al."?

l. 243-244
Please clarify this statement, "...as there is no statistical evidence". Does that mean there is no statistical evidence that it performs accurately?  Please expand this statement to make the point clearly.

Can you quantify how much worse the Van Dijk expression is compared to the CON1-CON15 expressions? This explanation/quantification is necessary, because otherwise this is just a subjective evaluation.

l. 251-252
This is a vague, subjective statement that needs to be more specific and quantitative.
Just saying that the performance is "generally moderate" is undefined to the reader.  Please rephrase to be quantitative and specific.

l. 276

Correction: "drips" should be "drops".  Again, this paper should be proofread for spelling and grammatical mistakes.

l. 298
Spell out numbers that are less than ten (10) (e.g., two, three).

l. 299
State where these mountains are; not every reader will know. Ex: "...regions in the southern Appalachian Mountains of the U.S."

l. 313
Add comma: "...crucial, considering...".

l. 343-344
This sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity, for example like this: "More precision ...region as more research has been conducted and more equations have been published."

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for your time and effort in evaluating our work. We have tried to answer your questions and enhanced the quality of the manuscript based on your suggestion. We hope this answer report could meet your requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

 

Please, find attached my comments.

All the best

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for your time and effort in evaluating our work. We have tried to answer your questions and enhanced the quality of the manuscript based on your suggestion. We hope this answer report could meet your requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I don't understand the arrows in the algorithm in Figure 2, they don't connect to anything. Please explain if the algorithm is complete

Author Response

We would like to thank you again for your time and effort in evaluating our work. We have tried to answer your questions for Round 2. We hope this answer report could meet your requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I have only a minor comment:

Ø Q- L122: Can you provide more information regarding the outliers’ estimation? Were they calculated objectively? Which was the methodology used?

A - Each rainfall event was drawn by a boxplot using rainfall intensity values. The outliners of the boxplot correspond to the abnormal data and were discarded.

Then, I understand that values over Q95 and under Q05 are removed? Please, clarify

 

Thank you

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you again for your time and effort in evaluating our work. We have tried to answer your question for Round 2. We hope this answer report could meet your requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx