the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PEAKO and peakTree: Tools for detecting and interpreting peaks in cloud radar Doppler spectra – capabilities and limitations
Abstract. Cloud radar Doppler spectra are of particular interest for investigating cloud microphysical processes, such as ice formation, riming and ice multiplication. When hydrometeor types within a cloud radar observation volume have sufficiently different terminal fall velocities, they produce individual Doppler spectrum peaks, convoluted by dynamical effects. If these (sub-)peaks can be separated, properties of the underlying hydrometeor populations can potentially be estimated, such as their fall velocity, number, size and to some extent their shape. However, this task is complex and dependent on the cloud radar operation settings, atmospheric dynamics and hydrometeor characteristics. As a consequence, there is a need for adjustable tools that are able to detect peaks in cloud radar Doppler spectra to extract the valuable information contained in them. This paper presents the synergistic use of two cloud radar Doppler spectra peak analysis algorithms, PEAKO and peakTree. PEAKO is a supervised machine learning tool that can be trained to obtain the optimal parameters for peak detection in cloud radar Doppler spectra for specific cloud radar instrument settings. The learned Doppler spectrum peak detection parameters can then be applied by peakTree, which is used to detect, structure and interpret Doppler spectrum peaks. The application of the improved PEAKO-peakTree toolkit is demonstrated in two case studies. The interpretation is supported by forward simulated cloud radar Doppler spectra by the Passive and Active Microwave TRAnsfer tool (PAMTRA), which are also used to explore the limitations of the algorithm toolkit posed by turbulence and the number of spectral averages chosen in the radar settings. From the PAMTRA simulations, we can conclude that a minimum number of 20–40 spectral averages is desirable for Doppler spectrum peak discrimination. Furthermore, liquid peaks can only be reliably separated for turbulence eddy dissipation rate values up to approximately 0.0002 m2 s−3. The first case study demonstrates that the methods work for different radar systems and settings by comparing the results for two cloud radar systems which were operated simultaneously at a site in Punta Arenas, Chile. Detected peaks which can be attributed to liquid droplets agree well between the two systems, as well as with an independent liquid-predicting neural network. The second case study compares PEAKO-peakTree-detected cloud radar Doppler spectra peaks to in situ observations collected by a balloon-based holographic imager during a campaign in Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard. This case showcases the Doppler spectrum peak detection algorithms’ ability to identify different hydrometeor types, but also reveals the limitations of the algorithm toolkit posed by strong turbulence and a low number of spectral averages. Despite these challenges, the algorithm toolkit offers a powerful means of extracting comprehensive information from cloud radar observations. In the future, we envision PEAKO-peakTree application on the one hand for interpreting cloud microphysics in case studies. The identification of liquid cloud peaks emerges as a valuable asset e.g. in studies on cloud radiative effects, seeder-feeder processes, or for tracing vertical air motions. Furthermore, the computation of the moments for each sub-peak enables the tracking of hydrometeor populations and the observation of growth processes along fall streaks. On the other hand, PEAKO-peakTree application could be extended to statistical evaluations of longer data sets. Both algorithms are openly available on GitHub, offering accessibility for the scientific community.
-
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
(7875 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7875 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2024
Doppler spectra observations are particularly useful for interpretating hydrometeor populations and tracing their changes in the air. This work aims to combine previously developed tools, PEAKO and peakTree, to characterize hydrometeor populations and to demonstrate their applicability. However, I am not convinced that there is a real need for combining these two algorithms. This manuscript is way too tedious, and I do not see much new contributions to the community. Please see my comments below.
Major comments.
1. The core of spectral analysis is the peak identification which facilitates separations of different hydrometeor populations. Actually, the essential contributions of PEAKO and peakTree algorithms are overlapped. PEAKO uses ML to identify spectral peaks, while peakTree uses a binary tree structure. The authors claimed that the two algorithms are combined. However, one may simply use PEAKO to do hydrometeor population separation without using peakTree. Therefore, I do not see any additional benefits of using peakTree. I do not really see the novelty or the value of publishment of this point.
To me, this work is simply the evaluation of PEAKO. However, this group has already developed and validated some ML methods for spectral peak identification in many papers, do you really need an additional paper demonstrating the validation?
2. In spite of my criticism on the novelty, I do see the need of assessing the impact of spectral average on peak identification. Unfortunately, this part is very poorly addressed. I list some technical questions as below. If they are well addressed upon major revisions, I would like to see its publication.
The number of averaged spectra in Table 1 is not clearly defined, how is it different from the number of coherent integrations? The PAMTRA simulation results in Section 3 shows that this parameter will affect the of spectral peak detection, and smoothing the spectrum in a desirable interval could help to suppress noise peaks. However, the recommended average number is based on the simulation for fixed PAMTRA parameters, in other words, the particle size distribution and atmospheric dynamics do not change. Do the simulation only represent the effect of Gaussian noise in the simulated Doppler spectra? These parameters can vary greatly over time in actual observations, in that case, additional averaging of Doppler spectra may instead lose useful signals. How should we measure whether to average the spectrum under different cloud environments? Also, the spectral resolution will affect the effect of averaging. How different spectral resolutions will affect the results?
Spectral averaging is entangled with the effect of turbulence. How do you separate their roles in changing the spectral shape respectively in real observations?
Fig.7(g-i) gives the PAMTRA simulated spectra based on the size distribution measured by HoloBallon, dose the simulations take into account the effect of horizontal wind on the spectra? In the simulations of bimodal distribution, the relative spectral reflectivity of ice peak and liquid peak is different from that observed by cloud radar. The responsible factors should be clearly discussed.
3. The misinterpretation of ice columns to SIP. You may see the presence of ice columns, however, they are not necessarily produced by SIP. If you wish to identify a SIP event, you need to compare Ncolumn with NINP, as did in (Li et al., ACP, 2021; Wieder et al., ACP, 2022; Billault-Roux et al., ACP, 2023).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-837-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Davide Ori, 15 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #4, 22 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2024
Doppler spectra observations are particularly useful for interpretating hydrometeor populations and tracing their changes in the air. This work aims to combine previously developed tools, PEAKO and peakTree, to characterize hydrometeor populations and to demonstrate their applicability. However, I am not convinced that there is a real need for combining these two algorithms. This manuscript is way too tedious, and I do not see much new contributions to the community. Please see my comments below.
Major comments.
1. The core of spectral analysis is the peak identification which facilitates separations of different hydrometeor populations. Actually, the essential contributions of PEAKO and peakTree algorithms are overlapped. PEAKO uses ML to identify spectral peaks, while peakTree uses a binary tree structure. The authors claimed that the two algorithms are combined. However, one may simply use PEAKO to do hydrometeor population separation without using peakTree. Therefore, I do not see any additional benefits of using peakTree. I do not really see the novelty or the value of publishment of this point.
To me, this work is simply the evaluation of PEAKO. However, this group has already developed and validated some ML methods for spectral peak identification in many papers, do you really need an additional paper demonstrating the validation?
2. In spite of my criticism on the novelty, I do see the need of assessing the impact of spectral average on peak identification. Unfortunately, this part is very poorly addressed. I list some technical questions as below. If they are well addressed upon major revisions, I would like to see its publication.
The number of averaged spectra in Table 1 is not clearly defined, how is it different from the number of coherent integrations? The PAMTRA simulation results in Section 3 shows that this parameter will affect the of spectral peak detection, and smoothing the spectrum in a desirable interval could help to suppress noise peaks. However, the recommended average number is based on the simulation for fixed PAMTRA parameters, in other words, the particle size distribution and atmospheric dynamics do not change. Do the simulation only represent the effect of Gaussian noise in the simulated Doppler spectra? These parameters can vary greatly over time in actual observations, in that case, additional averaging of Doppler spectra may instead lose useful signals. How should we measure whether to average the spectrum under different cloud environments? Also, the spectral resolution will affect the effect of averaging. How different spectral resolutions will affect the results?
Spectral averaging is entangled with the effect of turbulence. How do you separate their roles in changing the spectral shape respectively in real observations?
Fig.7(g-i) gives the PAMTRA simulated spectra based on the size distribution measured by HoloBallon, dose the simulations take into account the effect of horizontal wind on the spectra? In the simulations of bimodal distribution, the relative spectral reflectivity of ice peak and liquid peak is different from that observed by cloud radar. The responsible factors should be clearly discussed.
3. The misinterpretation of ice columns to SIP. You may see the presence of ice columns, however, they are not necessarily produced by SIP. If you wish to identify a SIP event, you need to compare Ncolumn with NINP, as did in (Li et al., ACP, 2021; Wieder et al., ACP, 2022; Billault-Roux et al., ACP, 2023).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-837-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Davide Ori, 15 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-837', Anonymous Referee #4, 22 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-837/egusphere-2024-837-RC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
We want to thank the four reviewers and the editor for all the time they spent so far to read our work and give feedback.
We are responding to all four reviewer comments in one document, to be able to cross-ref similar comments and the respective answers.
Thanks again for your work, we believe that your suggestions really helped us to improve our manuscript greatly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1-4', Teresa Vogl, 16 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
PEAKO code Teresa Vogl and Heike Kalesse https://github.com/ti-vo/pyPEAKO/
peakTree code Martin Radenz https://github.com/martin-rdz/peakTree
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
393 | 117 | 34 | 544 | 20 | 15 |
- HTML: 393
- PDF: 117
- XML: 34
- Total: 544
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Martin Radenz
Fabiola Ramelli
Rosa Gierens
Heike Kalesse-Los
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7875 KB) - Metadata XML