The authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for the positive comments and appreciate the time and effort made and insightful comments for improvements to our paper. We thank the reviewer for pointing out two typos in the manuscript (line 41 and line 53), which will be corrected in the revised manuscript.

We agree with the comments made about clarifying methodological assumptions on line 91 (log-normal assumptions) and line 92 (anisotropy), and propose to add the following clarification to the revised manuscript in Section 3.3:

“The random noise field is added to rainfall values to prevent numerical instabilities, with the marginal distribution from Fig. 2 converted to rainfall rates in Fig. 3. When considering the logarithm of weather radar noise (i.e. dry day images and values of dBZ corresponding to rainfall rates less than 0.1mmh^-1), these are sufficiently Gaussian to satisfy the assumption of a Log-Normal marginal distribution for random noise effects. A Log-Normal marginal distribution allows for a simple and easy transformation when simulating the field using Gaussian random field theory. Empirical variograms of these values were estimated to identify an appropriate correlation structure, which has a very short correlation range of around 5km. The optimal spatial transformation for minimising least squares between the marginal variogram values of the two spatial dimensions is used to estimate field anisotropy from empirical variogram fields, with estimates suggesting that isotropy of random noise fields is a valid assumption in this case.”

The authors would like to thank reviewer 2 for the in depth comments, and appreciate the time and effort made and insightful comments for improvements to our paper. We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for clarification on methodology and agree that key explanations (e.g. how the best guess rainfall field is estimated and how beam broadening/radar-sampling is taken into account) should be expanded upon and clarified and will be done in the revised manuscript. In the supplementary document attached, is a breakdown of author comments in response to the detailed major and minor points given by reviewer 2.