the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Cloud Chamber Studies on the Linear Depolarisation Ratio of Small Cirrus Ice Crystals
Abstract. Space-borne lidar, in combination with other remote sensing instrumentation, has been used to infer vertical profiles of ice cloud properties from A-train satellites, and more recently, also from the newly launched EarthCARE mission. However, accurately retrieving ice crystal microphysical properties from lidar signals requires a thorough understanding of their relationship to backscattering characteristics. Cloud chambers can be used to study the link under a controlled environment. This study investigates the link between the linear depolarisation ratio in the near-backscattering direction (178°) and the ice microphysical properties for 47 cloud experiments at cirrus temperatures between -75 °C and -39 °C. Predominantly small (diameter < 70 µm) columnar and irregularly shaped ice crystals were grown under distinct conditions of supersaturation with respect to ice. A statistical and visual analysis of size, shape and morphological complexity reveals that more than 40 % of the columnar particles exhibit hollowness on the basal facets. Ice crystals larger than 10 µm show depolarisation ratios below 0.3, which is lower than typical values observed in mid-latitude cirrus but in agreement with polar cirrus observations. Two temperature-dependent depolarization ratio - size modes were found and successfully reproduced with ray tracing simulations of hollow columns incorporating surface roughness, hollowness and internal scattering. These results are important for the interpretation of the linear depolarisation ratio of small ice crystals in active remote sensing and evaluating the performance of state-of-the-art optical particle models, especially for small size parameters below 100.
- Preprint
(3244 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Sep 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3515', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Sep 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3515', Darrel Baumgardner, 12 Sep 2025
reply
This is a very nicely written discussion of what I consider to be a very important subject matter, i.e. interpretation of polarization ratios derived from both passive and active remote sensors. The authors have conducted very thorough research and have approached the problem from multiple directions in order to achieve some semblance of closure.
What I think is missing, or perhaps has been overlooked, is a thorough uncertainty analysis, not only of the measurements but of the models, as well. There are also some open questions that I have about the SIMONE measurement system that are related to my request for the analysis of uncertainties.
Before evaluating the differences in the models and measurements, I think that it is imperative to discuss uncertainties. I am skeptical of the depolarization uncertainty that is stated as 1.4%, based solely on what is stated as calibration cycles. I didn't read the Schnaiter (2012) paper but my opinion is that referring the reader to this paper is insufficient due to the importance of this derived ratio to the main focus of the paper. Although it is not clearly explained in this paper, I believe that the SIMONE does not measure single particle scattering but detects scattering from an ensemble of particles. That being said, what impact do the following have on the derived polarization ratios: 1) number concentration, 2) size distribution, 3) crystal orientation, 4) spatial distributions within the sample volume (if not random, then how will this impact the measurement?).
My second concern is that there does not appear to be any mention of the difference between 178 degrees and 180 degrees backscattering on the polarization ratios. From my own modeling of polarized backscattering from single particles, there can be quite a difference in polarization ratios when looking at 178 degrees versus 180 degrees. Was a sensitivity analysis done in order to evaluate the differences between lidar at 180 and SIMONE and models at 178 for ensembles?
Once a detailed uncertainty analysis is include in this submission, I will be ready to accept it for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3515-RC2 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3515', Zbigniew Ulanowski, 18 Sep 2025
reply
This is a potentially very valuable contribution to cloud property retrieval using polarisation lidar. It is supported by extensive measurements using a whole array of instruments to not only measure depolarisation but also to characterise chamber-generated ice particle clouds.
However, I concur with Darrel Baumgardner's concern (https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3515-RC2) about the accuracy of the measurements and possible bias due to the difference between backscattering at the exact 180 and 178 degree angles. For example, differences may arise due to the phenomenon of coherent backscattering, which tends to create a sharp peak at 180 degrees. This also raises the possibility that the methods used are unable to accurately represent depolarisation at or near to the backscattering direction. In particular, it has been shown that the geometric optics method used here produces erroneous results in this context.
I also have serious misgivings about the methods used to size the ice particles. The authors write that they use a simple expression for size: D = a · Ib, where I is the scattered flux, and a and b≈0.5 are constants, citing Vochezer et al. (2016) who in turn cite the paper by Cotton et al. (2010) containing this expression. Then the authors state that the unknown "factor a is calibrated with spherical droplets". Either some details have been omitted from the description of this method, or it is inaccurate. The original paper by Cotton et al. (2010) goes on to point out that "the scattered flux from the sphere is larger by a factor of 3.0 [compared to ice particles]". Hence the omission of this correction would lead to undersizing of ice crystals by a factor of ~1.7. While the magnitude of this correction will vary with the detection geometry (range of scattering angles that are detected), in general it cannot be neglected. Has an attempt been made to extablish the magnitude of this correction factor for the specific geometry of the PPD-2K instrument that is reported to have been used here? If not, the sizing data may be invalid.
Finally, the last statement in the abstract gives the impression that the authors somehow aim to eat their cake and eat it too: can the study simulateously contribute to "interpretation of the linear depolarisation ratio of small ice crystals in active remote sensing and evaluating the performance of state-of-the-art optical particle models"? I would claim that it should be either, or: either the measurements are used to verify the models, or to provide interpretation of depolarisation as a remote sensing tool. The only exception to this dichotomy would be if evidence of complete closure between the ice properties, depolarisation, and model results was provided, but this is not seriously attempted. So the aims should be clarified, and appropriate emphasis adopted.
References:
Cotton, R., Osborne, S., Ulanowski, Z., Hirst, E., Kaye, P. H., and Greenaway, R. S.: The ability of the Small Ice Detector (SID-2) to characterize cloud particle and aerosol morphologies obtained during flights of the FAAM BAe-146 research aircraft, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 27, 290–303, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1282.1, 2010.
Vochezer, P., Järvinen, E., Wagner, R., Kupiszewski, P., Leisner, T., and Schnaiter, M.: In situ characterization of mixed phase clouds using the Small Ice Detector and the Particle Phase Discriminator, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 159–177, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-159-2016, 2016.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3515-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,028 | 27 | 11 | 1,066 | 24 | 22 |
- HTML: 1,028
- PDF: 27
- XML: 11
- Total: 1,066
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript presents the linear depolarization ratio of small ice crystals (< 70 µm) at 178° scattering angle under controlled laboratory conditions. The size and morphology of the ice crystals are well characterized in the laboratory. Therefore, the chamber studies present a valuable piece of information for atmospheric observations of cirrus clouds with lidar. Furthermore, it serves as constraint for optical models in the description of the complex shape of ice crystals. It is worth to analyze the AIDA measurements for this purpose and the topic is well suited for ACP. My concerns mostly regard the modelling approaches used to fit the observations. Therefore, it should be published after major revisions.
Major comments
Minor comments:
Technical Corrections