The Cloud-resolving model Radar SIMulator (CR-SIM) Version 3.3: description and applications of a virtual observatory

Oue, Mariko; Tatarevic, Aleksandra; Kollias, Pavlos; Wang, Dié; Yu, Kwangmin; Vogelmann, Andrew M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1975-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1975-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1975-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

Model description paper

|

21 Apr 2020

Model description paper |

| 21 Apr 2020

The Cloud-resolving model Radar SIMulator (CR-SIM) Version 3.3: description and applications of a virtual observatory

Mariko Oue, Aleksandra Tatarevic, Pavlos Kollias, Dié Wang, Kwangmin Yu, and Andrew M. Vogelmann

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Apr 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Sep 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Excellent manuscript on CR-SIM', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Responses to comments from Referee #1', Mariko Oue, 29 Oct 2019
SC1: 'Executive editor comment, code and data availability.', David Ham, 25 Nov 2019
- AC2: 'Response to comments from Executive Editor', Mariko Oue, 04 Dec 2019
- AC3: 'Second response to Executive Editor', Mariko Oue, 14 Dec 2019
RC2: 'Review of Oue et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2019
- AC4: 'Responses to comments from Referee #2', Mariko Oue, 14 Dec 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Mariko Oue on behalf of the Authors (18 Dec 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Jan 2020) by Simon Unterstrasser

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (02 Feb 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The detailed answer to my comments is appreciated and it is noticed that all my comments have resulted in some change in the manuscript. However, I expected more substantial changes in the manuscript.

Going back to my initial review, I want to clarify that with "basic facts should be clarified in the manuscript" I did not just mean adding details in the text, but that this should be considered throughout. Most importantly, I find both abstract and summary non-informative. They should contain more facts. Especially I would like these parts to clarify the novelty of the software, but also the main limitations should be clearly stated (at least in summary). That is, I should get a fairly good feeling by only reading abstract and summary if this tool is of interest for me, if I plan some simulations in this direction. Or if I shall look for another software?

I wrote "I fully understand that not all details can be considered", but I tried to also indicate that it would still be good to know if the information is available at all. That is, I would recommend to explain if the user guide provides further information for the different parts. I have not looked into the user guide, I don't think that should be required to review the manuscript.

Examples on parts that need further description, either by extending the manuscript or making clear that the information is found in the user guide:

- Calculation of particle fall velocity. For example, how has the parameterisation been determined? Does the fall velocity depend on assumed particle orientation?

- Information about dielectric constant for liquid particles has been added, but the corresponding information for ice is missing.

- The part on ceilometer and lidar simulations is extremely brief.

Example on parts that have been modified but are still hard to follow:

* Please explain clearly what you mean with terms such as propagation-corrected and propagation effects, the first time they are used.

* Text around line 95 and 146 indicates that external scattering properties can be included, while elsewhere a very rigid format for the scattering properties is described that seems to contradict the use of external data. On line 101 it even says that the LUTs are calculated by the T-matrix method. Even if this is poorly expressed and external data can be imported, it is highly unlikely that the external data match the orientations, size ranges and bin spacings that seem to be hard-coded. Is there any flexibility to facilitate to use external data?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Feb 2020) by Simon Unterstrasser

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (25 Feb 2020) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (12 Mar 2020) by Simon Unterstrasser

Short summary

We developed the Cloud-resolving model Radar SIMulator (CR-SIM) capable of apples-to-apples comparisons between the multiwavelength, zenith-pointing, and scanning radar and multi-remote-sensing (radar and lidar) observations and the high-resolution atmospheric model output. Applications of CR-SIM as a virtual observatory operator aid interpretation of the differences and improve understanding of the representativeness errors due to the sampling limitations of the ground-based measurements.