In  this manuscript, the authors claimed that they quantify uncertainty in nowcasting. However, I think the quality of this manuscript does not reach the level of a publishable work for a few key reasons:

1. The author misunderstood a few fundamental concepts in forecast post-processing. I have not seen the term ‘analysis uncertainty’ before, and it is very hard to know what it exactly refers to. If you are talking about uncertainties in weather forecasts, you should point that out, rather than using terms like: ‘ ensemble analysis ’, ‘analysis uncertainty’, ‘SIVA uncertainty’, etc. In results, the authors tried to compare the ensemble spread with RMSE (e.g., line 203), giving me the impression that they do not really understand the basic statistics of weather forecasts.

1. The manuscript has been carelessly prepared, making it extremely confusing and hard to understand. The whole manuscript reads like an automatic translation from a foreign language to English, using some software. Lots of grammatical errors and awkward expressions, making it hard to learn what they want to introduce. Please see examples in the detailed comments below.

1. Results did not show much improvements, in the resultant ensemble forecasts relative to the original forecasts. I could not figure out the necessity of this work. In addition, many findings presented are based on speculation, rather than based on solid data analysis.

Detailed comments:

Line 21, what is the trend of NWP? You should spell out the full name of NWP, when using it for the first time.

Line 37, what does ‘the analysis’ refer to?

Line 42, the ‘impact’ on what?

Line 43, what is the analysis error

Line 52, error produced by interpolation?

Line 56, a very awkward way of introducing NWP

Line 69, to as?

Line 74， analyses are

Line 77, for which months?

Line 84, how can you calculate analysis

Line 110, ‘Selected…..’ this is not a complete sentence

Line 115, no north arrow, no scale bar, no location information of the study area

Line 131，no clear what is ‘valley, floor and surface’

Line 154, no indentation

Line 166, there is no red line in the above figure

Line 172, why capitalize the word Analysis

Line 183, which summer month and which winter month?

This work offers a relevant contribution in the field of meteorological nowcasting, presenting a method to quantify the uncertainty in high resolution analysis at surface level by using a perturbation approach. Nowcasting accuracy is crucial for short term weather events forecast, so this work offers a good contribution because the ideas of using perturbations combined with an inflation factor allows a detailed description of uncertainties derived from the differences between observation and initial estimates. The method has been verified in a specific region through several crucial variables, confirming the robustness of the proposed approach. In my opinion, the manuscript can be considered for publication, but a general revision is needed, in order to address the following comments.

The introduction of the inflation factor represents an important improvement; however, it could be not sufficient to represent the complexity of the interpolation uncertainty. For this reason, I recommend the authors to better clarify the limitation of the proposed approach and to describe the possible potential future improvements.

The method works well with temperature and humidity, but has some difficulties with wind components. The authors claim that it is due to the lack of appropriate observational perturbations, however I recommend to add a more convincing explanation of this limitation.

The English style is sufficiently accurate, but it is necessary to improve the readability and clarity. Some complex phrases must be simplified, in order to enhance the readability. There are some grammatical errors; in the following I have reported some errors and imperfections, but there are many others scattered over the text, so a general revision is required.  

L 29 Avoid repeating the word “nowcasting” twice on the same line.

L 29 Change “nowcasting is with uncertainties” with "nowcasting involves uncertainties".

L 36 Avoid repeating the word “uncertainty” twice on the same line.

L 51-52 Something is wrong in the English syntax, this sentence is not clear.

L 54 Change “consider” with “considering”.

L 65 (NWP) - I do not understand which NWP are you talking about.

L 66 Haiden et al., 2010, 2011 were already cited at line 64, please remove here.

L 72-78 This paragraph is confusing and hard to be read. I suggest to remove it and to replace it with a description of the importance of this approach (i.e. strengthens), while this technical description could be moved elsewhere.

L 102-103 “are to match the stations at different altitudes ensure that NWP can be corrected in combination with the topographic parameters at station location”. There is something wrong in the English style.

L 119-121 Avoid using the word “ensemble” five times in the same sentence.

L 121 “is covered”. Do you probably mean “covers”? Otherwise there is a syntax error.

L 296 change “for nowcasting at initial time” with  “at the initial time of nowcasting”.