This clearly written paper provides an interesting historical review of the phenomenon of point discharge currents (PDCs) from pointed objects on the ground to the surrounding atmosphere, and their relationship to the ambient atmospheric electric field (whose magnitude is the potential gradient, but with the opposite sign).

Section 2 valuably discusses PDC observations made about a century ago. I wonder whether it would be good to use the data shown in Fig. 2 to plot a graph, having twelve points, showing PDC (y-axis) against Thunderstorms (x-axis), The correlation coefficient could be calculated, and the significance of the result assessed. Then thunderstorms having a dipole structure or a tripole structure are usefully discussed.

Section 3 considers other PDC observations, such as using radiosondes. Who was the S. Chapman mentioned (around line 200)? The eminent physicist Sydney Chapman? Aircraft, rocket and spacecraft observations are further discussed. In Fig. 4 I wonder whether Rocket nose cone would be a better term than Rocket warhead. Further, various ground-based observations and measurements using trees are also reviewed. 

Section 4 presents analytical and theoretical considerations of the topic. 

Sections 5 gives the Conclusions, concisely.

Here are some detailed points which, in my opinion, require attention before publication.

Line 7.   .... electric circuit, and the early evidence was found to support this model. ...

28.   ... its ...

Fig. 1a. It would be better to have a photograph showing a clear gap between the metal support of the point discharge instruments and the more distant tower. Fig. 1b. Is there a paper which describes this instrument? If so, please give a reference.

75.   ... Earth; however, in areas ...

77.   It was ...

114.   ... ionosphere, and restoring ...

282.   ... instruments; however, they still have ...

285.   aircraft

288.   It could be useful to state that this desert is in northern Mexico and southwestern USA.

308.   ... understood, however, was ...

Acknowledgements.    ... undertaking of BM's PhD project, ...

My answers to the 9 questions: YES to the first 8, and NO to number 9.

Thank you for the opportunity to read this useful and well written paper.

Michael Rycroft.

Review of Manuscript: The Role of Point Discharge in the Development of Atmospheric

Electricity by Mcginess et al.

The manuscript is interesting, well written, and covers all the significant advances in point discharge current research within the atmosphere. It also provides historical references to the phenomena. Whilst comprehensive the end of the discussion section or beginning of the conclusions could benefit from a paragraph discussing the future potential of point discharge measurements in addition to the measurements being undertaken now. This will add to the historical context of the material already shown.

For example, It is clear McGinnes et al 2024 is using a Point Discharge sensors so a line on their research using the sensor would be useful

There are also some minor comments below which need rectification before publication.

L77 It instead of in

L127: It would be useful to define the convention of positive and negative PDC. i.e is negative PDC an outflow of electrons from the point as defined in Whipple and scrace. Furthermore it may be prudent to add the Potential gradient convention too.

L189: Consider a paragraph break here. This makes it easier to see there is a shift in discussion between the positive dipole and the lower positive dipole

L266: no r in Ksanfomality

L288: Import(ance)

L297: Bi -polar logarithmic electrometer

Equations (2, 3 and 4) Are the constants a, b and c universal values which can be used interchangeably between the equations. If not I’d suggest renaming them to different values to avoid confusion.