the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
G-band Radar for Water vapor and Arctic Clouds (GRaWAC): novel insights on Arctic water vapor, clouds and precipitation
Abstract. Clouds are a central component in the complex interplay of feedback processes driving amplified warming in the Arctic. While state-of-the-art radar observations operating at X-, Ka-, or W-band provide detailed measurements of both hydrometeor distribution and cloud dynamics based on radar moments and spectra, current microphysical retrieval approaches are limited at small particle sizes ubiquitously present in Arctic clouds. Expanding observations to the G-band (110–300 GHz) can bridge this limitation and provide additional information on the vertical in-cloud water vapor distribution through the Differential Absorption Radar (DAR) method. Here, we introduce the dual-frequency, Dopplerized frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) G-band Radar for Water vapor and Arctic Clouds (GRaWAC), which operates simultaneously at 167.3 GHz and 174.7 GHz. GRaWAC uniquely combines DAR and Doppler capabilities in a bi-static system, achieving a sensitivity of −43 dBZ at 1 km range and a 1 s integration time with a vertical resolution of 20 m. GRaWAC's flexible design enables operational usage from ground, ship, or aircraft. By applying the Differential Absorption Radar (DAR) approach, we retrieve in-cloud and in-precipitation water vapor profiles, as well as partial column water vapor in all-sky conditions, when deployed from aircraft. In order to highlight GRaWAC's potential, we present first measurements from Arctic deployments at (1) the German-French AWIPEV research base, Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, with water vapor profiles derived at 60 s temporal and 200 m vertical resolution, and (2) aboard the AWI Polar 6 aircraft with profiles' vertical and horizontal resolution of 200 m and 1.6 km, respectively.
We find that ground-based retrievals capture lower-tropospheric moistening well. We find a RMSD of 0.5 gm-3 compared to coincident radiosonde profiles, which increases to up to 2 gm-3 in the case of differential scattering and liquid attenuation systematically affecting the retrieval approach. The temporal evolution of a mixed-phase cloud deck is well represented in Doppler spectra at 167.3 GHz, as characteristic bi-modal peaks form when supercooled liquid and ice coexist. During airborne operations, a case study shows that GRaWAC and a dropsonde water vapor profile agree remarkably well (within 0.5 gm-3). Retrieved IWV is sensitive to instrument calibration, and shows an RMSD of 1.1 kgm-2 compared to the statistics of dropsondes across different surface types, including sea-ice. While further investigation and retrieval development is needed to mitigate differential scattering and liquid attenuation effects on retrieved water vapor profiles, e.g., through a synergistic optimal estimation retrieval including microwave radiometer and W-band radar, our results highlight GRaWAC's potential to bridge the observational gap between Arctic cloud microphysics and thermodynamics.
- Preprint
(4658 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5563', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jan 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-5563/egusphere-2025-5563-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-5563-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sabrina Schnitt, 15 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5563', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2026
The paper presents novel measurements combining in situ and ground-based and airborne remote sensing instruments in the Artic. The suite of instruments is extremely interesting including a W band and a DAR system. Data from few case studies are presented and documented. As it is the paper looks more like a presentation of a dataset (but in case this is not the right journal) and it does not match the expectations fostered in the reader by the title ("novel insights on Arctic water vapor, clouds and precipitation"). There is no real insight into cloud and precipitation, surely. The assessment of the performances of the retrieval of water vapor also needs more attention. The focus of the paper could be on this aspect (but then a more thorough analysis needs to be provided).
I highlight an initial list of major comments that certainly need to be addressed. They should provide a starting point for further investigations.
Major comments
1) Not clear how the retrieval is actually performed. Rephrase and improve.
In Eq.7 you drop r_1 and r_2 (which is the basis of Eq.(6)). This generates confusion. So what is the relation between r r_1 and r_2 (I suppose r=(r_1+r_2)/2)? In particular it is not clear how big is R, whose selection is critical for the retrieval! (if R is too small the signal will be small and difficult to be disantangled from noise). Explanation in the following paragraph is unclear and must appear up-front.
2) Line 184: "We find that the bias to the reference is minimized for R = 200m and tavg = 60s, and we choose this setting for ground-based deployment, as illustrated in Sec. 4.". I think this statement should be discussed more in depth. I am surprised actually to see that there is one solution that fits it all. I would expect that more averaging may be needed at low water vapor conditions but that this could be relaxed in presence of larger moisture. This needs to be better investigated.
3)Line 195: hopefully this value of K_w^2 has been used consistently in the calibration of the radar reflectivity.
4)Line 198: in the computation of theta shouldn't the roll angle play a role as well?
5) Line 207 " IWV retrieval is sensitive to the absolute calibration of the radar", I am not sure I agree with this. It is sensitive to the relative calibration between the two channels. If they are both biased the same results are unaffected, aren't they?. And isn't a way to cross calibrate the two radars at cloud top anyhow (like done in Tridon et al., Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 5065–5085, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5065-20203 and in your Sect 5.2) ? This is very relevant to be discussed also in relation to the discussion later on in Sect 5.1.
6) Line 235, not sure why a level of 1 dB is selected, probably better to use 0 dB? Also I would plot negative SNR as well
7) Figure 2: maybe it is more significative to show relative errors in panel c) (and the radiosounding profile). Quality of figure must be improved (add grid).
8) Figure 3 and following. There are too many panels(mostly redundant). Replace panel d with b). Delete panel c) you can include the SNR as contour lines in panel a) (Just identify the levels that are of interest for the discussion).
9) Figure 5: I am really struggling in understanding what is the DWR plotted in the central panel. It seems it is not corresponding to the two reflectivites in the left panels.
10) "Profiles of DAR and RS agree remarkably well, with deviations of less than 0.5 gm−3", I am not sure I agree with this statement. A deviation of 0.5 g/m^3 is a huge error (e.g. 50% for 1 g/m^3).
11) Figure 7: it is interesting to see that the instrument can record Doppler spectra but this should be used to derive some microphysical properties. The figure as it is is not really adding much. Basically all the interesting work (e.g. with multiwavelenght spectra) is left as future work. I would probably skip the figure.
12) Sect 5.1: Fig10: it is unclear to me what are the initial few dbs of the differential reflectivity at the top of the profile and the decrease a little bit lower. What explanation can be provided? If it is volume mistmatch then you should avoid plotting this part of the profile. It seems that there is a retrieval of water vapour at such heights (I may be mistaken, that's why you need to put grids in plots!). If so, how is that possible? In general retrieval errors seem substantial to me.
13) Sect. 5.2: again not much quantitative insight in what is going on. Is this differential signal W-G due to differential scattering or extinction? Some clue from the sigma0 values? Can we size particles from DWR?Minor comments:
Line 260: for the retrieval at its minimal condition (rephrase)
Line 336: "at the time of launch" ==> at the time of the dropsonde launch
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5563-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sabrina Schnitt, 15 May 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,878 | 1,070 | 159 | 3,107 | 189 | 171 |
- HTML: 1,878
- PDF: 1,070
- XML: 159
- Total: 3,107
- BibTeX: 189
- EndNote: 171
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1