A multimodal approach to derive cloud microphysics in deep convective clouds from polarized measurements of the cloudbow
Abstract. We present a new method to derive droplet size distributions in clouds consisting of muliple modes using aircraft based polarized measurements of the cloudbow. The retrieval allows up to three modes in the droplet size distribution (DSD) and hence, is situated between a single mode retrieval and the Rainbow Fourier Transform (RFT), which derives an arbitrary distribution. While the DSDs of shallow cumulus or stratiform clouds are often well described by single mode distributions, this does not hold in the presence of drizzle or rain. Since current look-up tables of polarized phase functions used for the polarimetric fit extend only up to effective radii of about 40 µm, new Mie calculations were performed to include effective radii up to 1000 µm. In a sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty in the retrieval of large effective radii is tested as the polarized phase functions become less distinct. For effective radii up to about 800 µm, the relative mean bias is found to be less than 10 %. The relative noise (standard deviation) increases from about 4 % for typical cloud droplets of 10 µm to about 30 % around 500 µm before decreasing again towards even larger effective radii. With the found uncertainties in mind, the new multimode approach is applied to a case study of a deep convective cloud measured during the PERCUSION campaign in 2024 in the vicinity of Barbados, where a rainbow is observed in the RGB image of the camera and also the radar reflectivity shows clear signals of rain. While the single mode retrieval cannot accurately explain the measured signal close to the rainbow observation, the capability of the multimode retrieval to disentangle the signal is demonstrated qualitatively. Furthermore, the individual results from the multimode retrieval are evaluated against the droplet size distributions derived from the Rainbow Fourier Transform (RFT) and similarities are found in most cases, although the results from the RFT show instabilities with negative values in the DSD. Currently, the RFT is only capable to retrieve droplet size distributions with radii up to 100 µm, and hence is limited in regions with precipitating droplets. This is where the potential of the multimode approach comes into play as it is capable to detect modes of large effective radii up to 1000 µm, which does not only improve the result of a single mode retrieval, but might also allow to learn about physical processes such as rain initiation in deep convective clouds.
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.
Review of the manuscript
"A multimodal approach to derive cloud microphysics in deep convective clouds from polarized measurements of the cloudbow"
by L. Volkmer, L. Dorfer, and B. Mayer
General comments
----------------
The paper describes a new fitting algorithm for analysis of airborne polarimetric measurements in cloudbow angular range. It assumes up to 3 modes in cloud droplet size distribution (DSD), which is an advantage compared to traditional monomodal retrieval techniques. Another advantage of this method is the extended droplet size range, which allows to characterize drizzle and rain droplets. The algorithm was applied to real airborne observations of clouds, and detailed comparison of its results with those of the existing Rainbow Fourier Transform (RFT) method is provided. The comparison shows good agreement in the RFT's droplet size range (which is shorter, so no rain droplets detected by RFT).
The paper is very detailed and well-written, however, some of its important parts require clarification. I suggest to accept the paper after some minor while mandatory revisions described below in line comments.
Line comments
-------------
l.143
In Eq.10 what does the subscript A in f^_A,i stand for?
l.135
Eq.9 was first introduced by Breon and Goloub (1998), so it would be appropriate to cite that paper here.
l.155
Eq.12 assumes that N = 3 without explicitly stating this, while in all previous equations N can be any number. Please, clarify.
ll.157-159
I don't understand Eq.13 at all. If all A_i are the same, then according to Eq.12 A_tot = N*A_i, and f_A,i = A_i/A_tot = 1/N and does not depend on i (while f^_A,i obviously does). Or what is "general scaling factor" _within_ A_i? Please, explain.
ll.169-173
Denoting droplet number concentration by the same letter N that was already used for the number of DSD's modes is confusing. Please, chose different notation.
1.185
Again yet another parameter is denoted by N. I suggest to use subscripts to avoid confusion.
l.195
Lambda should be 1/(2 r_eff v_eff) to be consistant with Eq.6, since variable in Eq.21 is D = 2 r.
ll.256-262
It is not clear what "adding" another mode means. What information from the previous step is retained? If an actual bimodal distribution has, say, 5 um mode and 15 um modes the monomodal fit would return ~10 um mode, that should be split into two on the next step. But if results of the monomodal fit are not used, the bimodal unconstrained fit would be in the space of 6 parameters (3 for each mode) and is likely to be a very ill-posed problem requiring regularization (that is not included in the presented algorithm). Please, clarify.
Fig.9
Panel (a) is not mentioned in the caption.
ll.448-450 and Figs.12-15
While initial RFT distribution may be noisy and include negative values, these artifacts are removed by mode decomposition. The satellite dataset from PACE HARP-2 instrument does not include the initial RFT curve but only mode decomposition parameters (currently for 2 modes). This also significantly reduces the data volume.
Thus, for "apple to apple" comparison I strongly recommend changing the RFT representation in Figs.12-15 with solid dark-blue curves representing mode decomposition results, while the initial curve may be depicted by light color possibly dashed (or entirely removed).
Actually, comparisons of multimodal-fit distributions with RFT mode decomposition results look quite good, so emphasizing them would only benefit the paper. Of coarse, due to the limited radius range RFT cannot see rain droplets.
Also, RFT mode decomposition algorithm rejects any mode with fraction less then 5% (0.05), while the rain modes retrieved by the fitting technique have fractions around 0.01 and DSD maxima so small that they are visible only on the plot with logarithmic y-axis. However, the rainbow curves in (b) panels are consistent with presence of rain droplets. Are there in situ measurements demonstrating that such weak rain modes are real?
Monomodal curves in Figs.12-15 are plotted in yellow and are barely seen on the white background. I suggest using green instead.