the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of the Vertical Distribution of Particle Shape (VDPS) method with in situ measurements and assessment of the impact of non-Rayleigh scattering
Abstract. In this study, the vertical distribution of particle shape (VDPS) method for retrieval of the vertical distribution of particle shapes and the identification of riming and aggregation processes is evaluated through comparison with in-situ measurements and co-located multi-frequency radar observations collected during the CLOUDLAB campaign in Eriswil, Switzerland. Additionally, a novel aspect of the VDPS method is introduced, enabling the derivation of the polarizability ratio using slanted-mode linear depolarization ratio (SLDR) calculated from the main peaks of the Doppler spectra of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) from the co- and cross-polarized channels, respectively. This enhancement allows for the detection of secondary ice production and the coexistence of multiple hydrometeor types, which would stay undetected when the retrieval is only applied to the main peak of the Doppler spectrum in the co channel. Finally, the susceptibility of the VDPS method to the effects of non-Rayleigh scattering (particle sizes close or larger than the radar wavelength) is examined. The obtained results were found to demonstrate the potential of the VDPS method using a Ka-band scanning cloud radar in SLDR mode for operational hydrometeor classification, even under non-Rayleigh scattering conditions.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.
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
(17988 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3923', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3923/egusphere-2025-3923-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-3923-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3923', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2026
General Comments
This paper presents a validation of the VDPS method, introduced in an earlier paper by the same research group, expanding and illustrating its applicability to different case studies using independent VISSS observations recorded in the framework of the CLOUDLAB campaign. Two important contributions of the study are the use of SLDR based on cross-polarized Doppler spectra to detect hydrometeor populations and the assessment of non-Rayleigh effects trying to quantify biases at Ka/W band. Overall I think it is a valuable contribution to the field so, with a few clarifications and minor formal corrections (see Specific Comments), should be considered for publication – I suggest considering three general items in the text:
- Authors could describe more explicitly the contribution of the SLDR approach used (why is it important).
- The particle size limits considered as thresholds for Rayleigh scattering in the two bands used (Ka and W) could be mentioned in the introduction (not in a results section).
- A brief discussion could be added on potential limitations of using ECMWF IFS temperature profiles instead of local measurements such as those obtained by tethered-balloons or from microwave radiometers (which in principle were also available during the campaign according to https://cloudlab.ethz.ch/the-project.html) – given the uncertainty associated to IFS profiles perhaps they could be plotted without one decimal digit as they are now.
Â
Specific Comments
- Page 1, line 9. Typo: co channel -> co-channel (as in the rest of the text)? Please check.
- Page 2, line 43. Typo: Non-Rayleigh -> non-Rayleigh (as earlier in the same line and elsewhere).
- Page 3, end of Section 1. Section 5, unlike sections 2 to 4, is not mentioned here; please add a sentence to briefly describe it (I think it is ok to omit Section 5).
- Page 3, line 82. What does MBR mean? I assume is an internal naming convention, but readers might be curious (as I am) and a brief explanation can probably be added easily.
- Page 4, line 90. Typo: 2016b)) -> 2016b)
- Page 4, lines 98-99. ... of type (?)... Please check sentence and rewrite.
- Page 4, lie 104. Format: Tab. or Table? Please be consistent – I suggest using Table.
- Page 8, Figure 1 caption. Please add something as ‘Temperature levels plotted correspond to ECMWF IFS forecasts’ or similar.
- Page 11, Figure 4 caption. 10:10:17 -> 10:10:17 UTC
- Page 12, line 218. Please check meaning of this sentence. [and similarly Page 13, line 239].
- Page 16, line 275. Typo: the presence supercooled liquid droplets -> the presence of supercooled liquid droplets
- Page 23, line 405. ... that were... that was? Please check meaning.
- Page 26, Figure 18 caption. Suggest: Surface hydrometeor shapes detected with VISSS ...
- References: some DOIs have duplicated ‘doi.org’ strings in the URL.
- Page 29, line 526. Typo: Journals -> Journal
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3923-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,290 | 72 | 28 | 1,390 | 26 | 26 |
- HTML: 1,290
- PDF: 72
- XML: 28
- Total: 1,390
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1