Quick Predictions of Onset Times and Rain Amounts from Monsoon Showers over Urban Built Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Just one question. Why ground based rain gauges not used to verify the received values of precipitation amount, rate and onset time?

I have some recommendations for text editing:

str. 78  expensive change to valuable,

str. 104 Figure 1a does not look like an aerial shot,

str. 177 "? and ? winds" add "(components of the horizontal wind velocity vector)",

str. 187-188 "One notices from Fig. 3 ... ~17 ???." This is not visible from Fig. 3!

str. 244 "strong vertical updraft of 1 ??⁻¹" 1 ??-1 is not a significant value!

Conclusions need to be corrected (references to the results (i-iii) ).

Some abbreviations are not defined at first use: LES (str. 182), CCN (str. 229), DMC (str. 233), DSD (str. 324).

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Quick predictions of onset times and rain amounts from monsoon showers over urban built environments” submitted to Atmospheric journal. The authors first built and validated a WRF model for the Southern Indian City against observed data. They then develop analytical formulation to predict the onset time of precipitation. The study may be of interests of the readers of Atmosphere journal, but the authors should improve their manuscript:

1. The authors should conduct a more rigorous literature review on the topic. They should list similar studies worldwide and figure out gaps of those studies in the introduction. In the result and discussion, the authors should show how your study is filling these gaps.
2. The authors should restructure your manuscript; I found many parts should belong to introduction (e.g., study gaps) are placed in methodology, and Results contain methodology.
3. The watersheds delineated from DEM by ArcGIS are mostly used for simulating natural systems whereas this is a heavily urbanized area.

Line 77: should we call it a numerical weather prediction model

Figure 2: please make the two scales become similar

Lines 138-139: for which period?

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed well my comments from the previous round.

Author Response

We are very grateful for your insightful comments which led to an improvement of the quality of our paper.

We thank you for approving our revisions and recommending publication.