The subject of the paper is certainly of scientifc relevance, as made clear in the Introduction. I could imagine that the data set the authors present is very valuable and bears potenital for an in-depth analysis of the precipitation processes over Andalusia and their relation of aerosols.

However, from my point of view, this manuscript does not meet required scientific standards. Essential ones are missing, such as formulation of a clear research question/hypothesis, presentation of comprehensible methods, discussion of the uncertainties of the applied methods, scientifcally sound relation of the results to the derived conclusions. Also, the drawn conclusions as presented here do not really present novel findings as far as I see. Additionally, a number of formulations are scientically unprecise.

The manuscript explores the precipitation properties in Granada using a set of remote sensing and in situ instruments. The study focuses on the relationship between precipitation and aerosols, measured over 11 years. There are minor corrections to be made by the authors, but the overall manuscript is very good and well-written. Thus, I suggest the manuscript to be published.

Line 5: I would say that the objective is to characterize the precipitation events regarding the aerosol and meteorological properties, with much less emphasis on forecasting. In particular, the forecast aspect of the paper is not discussed enough to have it as a clear aim of the study.  

Line 15: How many rain-day events were identified by the weather station data? Please make it clear here.

Line 126: I suggest replacing “etc” with “among other products”.

Line 135: replace “uJ” by “µJ”

I suggest the authors indicate in the manuscript methodology section, together with the start period of measurement, the amount (percentage) of data used in the study for each instrument. It is unclear if there are gaps in the measurements that could add bias to the data. 

Regarding the nephelometer measurements, did the authors correct the data for standard temperature and pressure measurements? What were the humidity conditions in which the data were collected? This information must be explicit in the manuscript.

Line 174: remove the extra “.”. After “zenith”, add a “;” and remove the “.”.

Lines 269-271: I suggest moving the sentences “The scattering coefficient could be used as a proxy of aerosol mass or volume concentration while the AE provides an estimation of the predominant aerosol mean size at dry conditions. Values of AE>2 indicate a predominance of fine particles while values of AE<1 indicate the predominance of coarse particles.” to the in situ measurements section. 

Lines 275 - 276: the authors stated: “Thus, the diurnal variation pattern of aerosols is not the main cause of the significant increase in scattering coefficient 4 hours prior to the onset of rain”. I suggest the authors add a figure (which could be, for instance, in the supplementary material) confirming this affirmation.