the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Sep 2024
Orbital-Radar v1.0.0: A tool to transform suborbital radar observations to synthetic EarthCARE cloud radar data
Abstract. The Earth Cloud, Aerosol and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) satellite developed by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched in May 2024 carries a novel 94-GHz Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) with Doppler capability. This work describes the open-source instrument simulator Orbital-Radar, which transforms high-resolution radar data from field observations or forward simulations of numerical models to CPR primary measurements and uncertainties. The transformation accounts for sampling geometry and surface effects. We demonstrate Orbital-Radar's ability to provide realistic CPR views of typical cloud and precipitation scenes. These results provide valuable insights into the capabilities and challenges of the EarthCARE CPR mission and its advantages over the CloudSat CPR. Finally, Orbital-Radar allows for the evaluation of kilometer-scale numerical weather prediction models with EarthCARE CPR observations.
- Preprint
(966 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Sep 2024
This is relatively simple paper that describes a software tool to emulate EarthCARE or CloudSat measurements given ground-based, airborne, and simulated radar reflectivity and Doppler. I only have a few minor comments below to address before publication.
Line 73: ‘If the input radar data are from a 35 GHz radar system, then, the technique described in Protat et al. (2010) is used to convert them to 94 GHz’. This is important. Please describe the method at a high level at least.
Line 85: ‘As a result, the surface-up and spacedown view of strongly attenuating cloud and precipitation systems is very different and the comparison of these views using Orbital-Radar is not recommended.’ Are these columns flagged in the output?
Line 119: ‘Thus, a fixed value of 52 dB is used.’ Are you assuming sigma_0 = 52 dB or that the reflectivity factor is 52 dBZ? This is inconsistent wi the table.
Line 187: Bad grammar and duplicated sentence. ‘Finally, these two error terms are combined to estimate the total CPR Doppler velocity uncertainty These two terms are combined to provide the total CPR Doppler velocity uncertainty std(VDOP ):’
Line 204: ‘The MS flag calculation is based on the method from Battaglia’. Again it’s OK to cite but describe at a high level how this works.
I suggest that a table is added that lists all of the variables included in the output files.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Sep 2024
The paper presents the open-source instrument simulator Orbital-Radar. The manuscript is well written. I only have few minor comments.
Comments:
Line 74: “the same dielectric constant (k = 0.75)” Do you mean |K|^2 ?
Line 84: “If the input data are from a ground-based radar system, they should be restricted to cases with limited attenuation such as ice clouds and shallow systems.” Embedded liquid layers could cause significant attenuation of W-band radar observations. Do you recommend to use MWR or lidar observations to diagnose mixed-phase conditions? Would you recommend a LWP threshold that would define where your tool should or should not be used?
Line 90 “the introduction of the Earth’s surface radar reflectivity” Radar reflectivty characterizes a volume target. I am not sure how surface radar reflectivity is defined.
Eq. 3: Do you have a reference for the EarthCARE’s CPR pulse shape?
Table 1. You assume PRF of 5000 Hz. What are the actual PRF values used by EarthCARE CPR?
Eq. 5. Is the reference (Kollias et al., 2022) correct? I was not able to find justification for using normally distributed reflectivity noise. As far as I remember i,q data follows normal distribution. The reflectivity factor should follow chi^2, if I am not mistaken. What are the units of Eq 5?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-RC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Eleni Marinou, 11 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-129/gmd-2024-129-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-129/gmd-2024-129-CC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Oct 2024
Dear authors,Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Also, please include the relevant primary input/output data.In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, you must include the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section in a potentially reviewed manuscript, the DOI of the code. Moreover, note that the link and DOI to repositories must be included in the Code and Data availability sections, not cited and then included in the list of references.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
Dear Mr. Juan A. Añel
we are sorry for the confusion we made. The Repositories you are asked for are created and in place since June. However, we did not properly cite and link them. The changes made to the manuscript hopefully solve the problem. Please see the new text for the Code and data availability section
Code and data availability. The open-source Orbital-Radar Python package, along with a Jupyter Notebook containing usage examples, is available on Zenodo at (Risse and Pfitzenmaier, 2024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13375014 ). The data used in this study can be accessed on Zenodo at (Pfitzenmaier and Risse, 2024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12547896 )
This repository includes PAMTRA simulations of the Ny-Ålesund ICON-NWP, W-band radar data from JOYCE and Mindelo (in GE-310OMS format), and airborne MiRAC-A W-band radar data. Ground-based W-band radar data from JOYCE is available on the ACTRIS database (CLU) at (Pfitzenmaier et al., 2024, https://doi.org/10.60656/e8c4957887854659 ). while ground-based W-band radar data from Mindelo during the ASKOS campaign is accessible on the ACTRIS database (CLU) at (Antonescu et al., 2024, https://doi.org/10.60656/c5e09106ba0246bc ). Airborne MiRAC-A W-band radar data collected during the AFLUX campaign is available on the PANGAEA database at (Mech et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.965120 ).
Kind Regards
Lukas Pfitzenmaier
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Sep 2024
This is relatively simple paper that describes a software tool to emulate EarthCARE or CloudSat measurements given ground-based, airborne, and simulated radar reflectivity and Doppler. I only have a few minor comments below to address before publication.
Line 73: ‘If the input radar data are from a 35 GHz radar system, then, the technique described in Protat et al. (2010) is used to convert them to 94 GHz’. This is important. Please describe the method at a high level at least.
Line 85: ‘As a result, the surface-up and spacedown view of strongly attenuating cloud and precipitation systems is very different and the comparison of these views using Orbital-Radar is not recommended.’ Are these columns flagged in the output?
Line 119: ‘Thus, a fixed value of 52 dB is used.’ Are you assuming sigma_0 = 52 dB or that the reflectivity factor is 52 dBZ? This is inconsistent wi the table.
Line 187: Bad grammar and duplicated sentence. ‘Finally, these two error terms are combined to estimate the total CPR Doppler velocity uncertainty These two terms are combined to provide the total CPR Doppler velocity uncertainty std(VDOP ):’
Line 204: ‘The MS flag calculation is based on the method from Battaglia’. Again it’s OK to cite but describe at a high level how this works.
I suggest that a table is added that lists all of the variables included in the output files.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Sep 2024
The paper presents the open-source instrument simulator Orbital-Radar. The manuscript is well written. I only have few minor comments.
Comments:
Line 74: “the same dielectric constant (k = 0.75)” Do you mean |K|^2 ?
Line 84: “If the input data are from a ground-based radar system, they should be restricted to cases with limited attenuation such as ice clouds and shallow systems.” Embedded liquid layers could cause significant attenuation of W-band radar observations. Do you recommend to use MWR or lidar observations to diagnose mixed-phase conditions? Would you recommend a LWP threshold that would define where your tool should or should not be used?
Line 90 “the introduction of the Earth’s surface radar reflectivity” Radar reflectivty characterizes a volume target. I am not sure how surface radar reflectivity is defined.
Eq. 3: Do you have a reference for the EarthCARE’s CPR pulse shape?
Table 1. You assume PRF of 5000 Hz. What are the actual PRF values used by EarthCARE CPR?
Eq. 5. Is the reference (Kollias et al., 2022) correct? I was not able to find justification for using normally distributed reflectivity noise. As far as I remember i,q data follows normal distribution. The reflectivity factor should follow chi^2, if I am not mistaken. What are the units of Eq 5?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-RC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Eleni Marinou, 11 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-129/gmd-2024-129-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-129/gmd-2024-129-CC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-129', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Oct 2024
Dear authors,Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Also, please include the relevant primary input/output data.In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, you must include the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section in a potentially reviewed manuscript, the DOI of the code. Moreover, note that the link and DOI to repositories must be included in the Code and Data availability sections, not cited and then included in the list of references.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
Dear Mr. Juan A. Añel
we are sorry for the confusion we made. The Repositories you are asked for are created and in place since June. However, we did not properly cite and link them. The changes made to the manuscript hopefully solve the problem. Please see the new text for the Code and data availability section
Code and data availability. The open-source Orbital-Radar Python package, along with a Jupyter Notebook containing usage examples, is available on Zenodo at (Risse and Pfitzenmaier, 2024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13375014 ). The data used in this study can be accessed on Zenodo at (Pfitzenmaier and Risse, 2024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12547896 )
This repository includes PAMTRA simulations of the Ny-Ålesund ICON-NWP, W-band radar data from JOYCE and Mindelo (in GE-310OMS format), and airborne MiRAC-A W-band radar data. Ground-based W-band radar data from JOYCE is available on the ACTRIS database (CLU) at (Pfitzenmaier et al., 2024, https://doi.org/10.60656/e8c4957887854659 ). while ground-based W-band radar data from Mindelo during the ASKOS campaign is accessible on the ACTRIS database (CLU) at (Antonescu et al., 2024, https://doi.org/10.60656/c5e09106ba0246bc ). Airborne MiRAC-A W-band radar data collected during the AFLUX campaign is available on the PANGAEA database at (Mech et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.965120 ).
Kind Regards
Lukas Pfitzenmaier
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-129-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Lukas Pfitzenmaier, 29 Oct 2024
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 372 | 65 | 123 | 560 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 372
- PDF: 65
- XML: 123
- Total: 560
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1