the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Hydrometeor partitioning ratios for dual-frequency space-borne and polarimetric ground-based radar observations
Abstract. Conventional radar-based hydrometeor classification (HMC) algorithms identify the dominant hydrometeor type within a resolved radar volume, while more recent techniques allow estimation of the proportions of individual hydrometeor classes (hydrometeor partitioning ratios, HPRs) within a mixture. These newer algorithms (HMCPDP) are based on dual-polarization (DP) measurements from ground-based radars (GR), while similar algorithms do not yet exist for space-borne radars (SR) with dual-frequency (DF) capabilities. This study has three objectives, (1) to evaluate HPR retrievals, (2) to exploit the combination of DF SR and DP GR for estimating HPR based on satellite DF observations (HPRkDF) and (3) to further improve HPRkDP estimates based on GR DP observations. To achieve these, DP measurements of NEXRAD’s GRs are matched with those of the dual-frequency precipitation radar of the Global Precipitation Measurement Core satellite. All matched volumes are represented by averaged DF and DP observations and several hundred GR sub-volumes classified with the standard HMC. The latter are used to calculate quasi-HPRs (qHPRs). qHPRs and averaged DF and DP variables serve as basis for the HPRkDF and HPRkDP retrievals, which in turn are evaluated with the qHPRs. The vertical distributions of HPRkDF and HMCPDP products are in good agreement. Furthermore, the estimated HPRs show for most hydrometeor classes high correlations with the qHPRs and confirm the overall good performance of the algorithms. However, HMCPDP performance is superior to HMCPDF. In both DF and DP space, snow HPRs are underestimated, graupel HPRs are overestimated, and HPRs for big drops show only low correlations.
- Preprint
(10239 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1414', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jun 2025
This is a study of precipitation particle type classification and presents useful results. However, it is difficult to read due to too many abbreviations.
Line 3 It is unclear what the P in HMC^DP_P means.
Line 6-7 It is unclear what the k in HPR^DF_k and HPR^DP_k refers to.
Line 9 What does "these" refer to? there are no DP measurements in GPM/DPR.
Line 37 The u and a in Ku-band and Ka-band are not subscripts.
Figure 2 Why are NEXRAD radar sites concentrated in the eastern half of the country?
Line 64 The u and a in KuPR and KaPR are not subscripts.
Line 66 November 2024 -> Novermber 2023
Line 95 It is unclear what MS indicates.
Line 149 Please explain what kind of particles are big drops (BD)
Line 171 training dataset -> test dataset
Figure 4 A legend should be attached to each subfigure.
Line 263 “an” overestimationCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1414-RC1 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1414', Gianfranco Vulpiani, 26 Aug 2025
Dear Authors,
here are some comments I had to post to finalize to review process which took than due. Really sorry for this.
General comments
As clearly outlined in the Abstract, the objective of the study is threefold: to evaluate hydrometeor partition ratios retrievals, to exploit the combination of Dual Frequency (DF) satellite radar and Dual Polarization ground radar (GR) observations for estimating HPR based on satellite DF observations and to improve ground-based radar estimates of HPR.
NEXRAD S-band polarimetric radar observations are matched with satellite radar (SR) dual-frequency measurements of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite mission collected from 2014 to 2023.
The data, regardless of the platform (ground- or satellite-), undergoes a complex processing procedure to compensate for multiple error sources before being resampled into a common spatial domain.
The work is articulated in the following main steps:
- Dual polarization ground-based radar data (NEXRAD) and dual-frequency Satellite-based radar data (GPM-DPR) are both resampled in so-called superobbed volumes to make the data resolution comparable. This aggregated volume contains hundreds of high-resolution radar gates.
- The high-resolution radar gates contained in the superobbed volumes are classified with the Hydrometeor Classification algorithm proposed by Park et al. (2009) which assigns a dominant hydrometeor type (e.g. light rain, snow, hail, etc.).
- For each aggregated volume Si, it’s determined the number of pixels N(HMk) in which each hydrometeor class HMk is dominant
- For each class, the quasi-HPRs (qHPRs)are calculated as N(HMk) normalized by the total number of valid pixels in the superobbed volume.
- These qHPRs are subsequently used both to train and to validate the HPR models on superobbed volumes from SR and GR observations. Consequently, the qHPRs represent a fundamental component of the study.
Major comments
This methodological choice raises a concern regarding potential circularity:
- The HPR estimates from GR are evaluated against qHPRs that are themselves derived from the same GR data (at higher resolution), which may lead to an overestimation of model performance.
- There is a risk that the HMCᴾ model merely reproduces the classifications already present in the GR dataset, rather than demonstrating genuine improvement or generalization beyond the initial HMC algorithm.
- As a result, the validation lacks independence, which undermines the robustness of the conclusions regarding the model’s effectiveness in the GR context.
To mitigate this issue, it would be advisable to use qHPRs solely for training, and to validate the GR-based HPR estimates using independent data sources (e.g., in situ observations, radiosonde profiles, or alternative/independent radar systems).
Minor comments
- Abstract. In my opinion, there are too many acronyms in the abstract (about 40 in 15 lines), which makes it difficult to read. The abstract is the first thing people read. Please try to simplify it while ensuring it remains effective.
- Introduction, pag. 1, line 18. I question the use of the adjective “fundamental”. I'm not sure that HMC can really be considered fundamental to QPE at least at the range gate level. Do you mean from an operational or scientific point of view? Who actually applies HMC before estimating QPE? In stratiform precipitation, the application of VPR correction is much more important than any HRM classification. In convective precipitation, what is the overall impact of excluding certain hail spot from the rain field?
- To make the reading easier I suggest to focus the manuscript on the proposed methodology, moving the description of GR and SR data pre-processing (Sections n. 2.1, 2.2) to the Appendix.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1414-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
476 | 54 | 12 | 542 | 22 | 41 |
- HTML: 476
- PDF: 54
- XML: 12
- Total: 542
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1