Evaluation of polarimetric ice microphysical  retrievals with OLYMPEX campaign data

Blanke, Armin; Heymsfield, Andrew J.; Moser, Manuel; Trömel, Silke

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2089-2023

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2089-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Fusion of radar polarimetry and numerical atmospheric modelling...

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2089-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

20 Apr 2023

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 20 Apr 2023

Evaluation of polarimetric ice microphysical retrievals with OLYMPEX campaign data

Armin Blanke, Andrew J. Heymsfield, Manuel Moser, and Silke Trömel

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Apr 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Jan 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2023

Line 100-104, is rhohv > 0.7 the only quality control used here for Kdp calculation? Is SNR also been taken into account?
Line 113-115, regarding 2D-S and HVPS probes, did the authors checked for the down times (mostly due to system overload)? Any dual polarimetric signal patterns with the down times of the probes data? And what is the fraction of the down times to the useful time steps during the flight?
Line 245-250, for the RSVP, when RHIs are averaged, since each RHI has its own averaged time steps, is the time difference also interpolated? Also, for gates to gates average, the distance for each gate to the center of vertical profile is different, did the authors used any technique like distance inverse weighting to take this into consideration?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
  
  Also on behalf of my co-authors, I like to thank the reviewer for his/her time and all the valuable inputs. Please see the attached file for a detailed response to your comments. The answers are highlighted in blue.
  
  Best wishes,
  Armin Blanke
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1488', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023

See the attachment.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Armin Blanke, 13 Mar 2023
  
  On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank for all your comments and corrections which helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find the detailed answers to the questions raised in the attached file. All the responses are in blue text to make them easy to find.
  
  Best wishes,
  Armin Blanke
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1488-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Armin Blanke on behalf of the Authors (14 Mar 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (15 Mar 2023) by Patric Seifert

AR by Armin Blanke on behalf of the Authors (22 Mar 2023) Manuscript

Executive editor

This study evaluates many currently available conventional and polarimetric radar-based remote-sensing retrievals of ice water content, total number concentration and mean diameter of ice hydrometeors. It has the potential to become a reference for the assessment of measurement uncertainties from radar observations for which no in-situ reference data are available.