the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of polarimetric ice microphysical retrievals with OLYMPEX campaign data
Abstract. Polarimetric microphysical retrievals reveal a great potential for the evaluation of numerical models and data assimilation. However, the accuracy of ice microphysical retrievals is still poorly explored. To evaluate these retrievals and assess their accuracy, polarimetric radar measurements are spatially and temporally collocated with in situ aircraft measurements obtained during the OLYMPEX campaign (Olympic Mountain Experiment). Retrievals for ice water content IWC, total number concentration Nt, and mean volume diameter Dm of ice particles are assessed by comparing an in situ dataset obtained by the University of North Dakota (UND) Citation II aircraft with X-band Doppler on Wheels (DOW) measurements. Sector averaged range height indicator (RHI) scans are used to derive vertical profiles of microphysical retrievals. The comparison of these estimates with in situ data provides insights into strengths, weaknesses, and accuracy of the different retrievals, and quantifies the improvements of polarimetry-informed retrievals compared to conventional, non-polarimetric ones. In particular, the recently introduced hybrid ice water content retrieval exploiting reflectivity ZH, differential reflectivity ZDR and specific differential phase KDP outperforms other retrievals based on either (ZH, ZDR) or (ZH, KDP) or non-polarimetric retrievals in terms of correlations with in situ measurements and the root mean square error.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2662 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2662 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2023
Line 100-104, is rhohv > 0.7 the only quality control used here for Kdp calculation? Is SNR also been taken into account?
Line 113-115, regarding 2D-S and HVPS probes, did the authors checked for the down times (mostly due to system overload)? Any dual polarimetric signal patterns with the down times of the probes data? And what is the fraction of the down times to the useful time steps during the flight?
Line 245-250, for the RSVP, when RHIs are averaged, since each RHI has its own averaged time steps, is the time difference also interpolated? Also, for gates to gates average, the distance for each gate to the center of vertical profile is different, did the authors used any technique like distance inverse weighting to take this into consideration?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank for all your comments and corrections which helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find the detailed answers to the questions raised in the attached file. All the responses are in blue text to make them easy to find.
Best wishes,
Armin Blanke
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2023
Line 100-104, is rhohv > 0.7 the only quality control used here for Kdp calculation? Is SNR also been taken into account?
Line 113-115, regarding 2D-S and HVPS probes, did the authors checked for the down times (mostly due to system overload)? Any dual polarimetric signal patterns with the down times of the probes data? And what is the fraction of the down times to the useful time steps during the flight?
Line 245-250, for the RSVP, when RHIs are averaged, since each RHI has its own averaged time steps, is the time difference also interpolated? Also, for gates to gates average, the distance for each gate to the center of vertical profile is different, did the authors used any technique like distance inverse weighting to take this into consideration?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank for all your comments and corrections which helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find the detailed answers to the questions raised in the attached file. All the responses are in blue text to make them easy to find.
Best wishes,
Armin Blanke
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
246 | 86 | 13 | 345 | 8 | 3 |
- HTML: 246
- PDF: 86
- XML: 13
- Total: 345
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Armin Blanke
Andrew J. Heymsfield
Manuel Moser
Silke Trömel
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2662 KB) - Metadata XML