the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Toward less subjective metrics for quantifying the shape and organization of clouds
Abstract. As clouds sizes and shapes become better resolved by numerical climate models, objective metrics are required to evaluate whether simulations satisfactorily reflect observations. However, even the most recent cloud classification schemes rely on quite subjectively defined visual categories that lack any direct connection to the underlying physics. The fractal dimension of cloud fields has been used to provide a more objective footing. But, as we describe here, there are a wide range of largely unrecognized subtleties to such analyses that must be considered prior to obtaining meaningfully quantitative results. Methods are described for calculating two distinct types of fractal dimension: an individual fractal dimension Di representing the roughness of individual cloud edges, and an ensemble fractal dimension De characterizing how cloud fields organize hierarchically across spatial scales. Both have the advantage that they can be linked to physical symmetry principles, but De is argued to be better suited for observational validation of simulated collections of clouds, particularly when it is calculated using a straightforward correlation integral method. A remaining challenge is an observed sensitivity of calculated values of De to subjective choices of the reflectivity threshold used to distinguish clouds from clear skies. We advocate that, in the interests of maximizing objectivity, future work should consider treating cloud ensembles as continuous reflectivity fields rather than collections of discrete objects.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(4180 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3486', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3486', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Dec 2025
This paper discusses different definitions of fractal dimensions for cloud fields. Its detailed exploration of what different fractal dimensions actually mean, and how they behave across different cloud fields is a worthwhile addition to the literature, and it should be published. The paper is clearly written, although sometimes a bit long and could serve from a small additional round of editing (e.g., I’m not sure that it is necessary to cite the Feynman lectures here). I have the following comments for the authors to consider, hopefully further improving the paper:
I am not convinced about the framing of this paper as an objective classification of cloud fields. For that to be the case, I would expect some kind of relevant difference to occur between clouds in different classes of D, beyond the relatively trivial relationship with other metrics. I could guess that there are certain distinct differences (e.g., certain values correspond roughly with cumulus, stratus, gravel, fish, etc – but in a more precise way), but the paper is not actually that case. I recommend either making that case (in which case the paper becomes likely quite different, for instance by applying De to Janssens’ cloud botany), or reframing the introduction and conclusions to simply focus on fractal properties.
Around line 260, and further on around line 280, I would like the authors to be more specific about their methods (e.g., “ignoring the portion the distribution that is dominated by large clouds that extend beyond the measurement domain”) , and the biases their choices may or may not introduce. For instance, in the method section it was stated that clouds over land were not included, but that could easily bias against larger clouds.Likewise, the exclusion on L 260 does something similar.
A few more minor comments:
L 63: Please give some citations
L78: What is the pixelsize/resolution of the satellite images?
L86: 72 images is not a whole lot to process into powerlaws. Is it possible to generate a larger dataset? What is the resulting number of clouds that are analyzed, and the margin of error in some of the later analysis as a result?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3486-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3486', Thomas DeWitt, 28 Jan 2026
Data sets
Reproducibility code for "Toward less subjective metrics for quantifying the shape and organization of clouds" Thomas D. DeWitt https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15844057
Model code and software
objscale: Object-based analysis functions for fractal dimensions and size distributions Thomas D. DeWitt https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16114656
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 891 | 138 | 47 | 1,076 | 29 | 30 |
- HTML: 891
- PDF: 138
- XML: 47
- Total: 1,076
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See the attached PDF.