Articles | Volume 21, issue 22
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving the representation of aggregation in a two-moment microphysical scheme with statistics of multi-frequency Doppler radar observations
- Final revised paper (published on 25 Nov 2021)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 01 Jul 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-382', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Markus Karrer, 14 Sep 2021
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-382', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Aug 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Markus Karrer, 14 Sep 2021
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Markus Karrer on behalf of the Authors (14 Sep 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (20 Oct 2021) by Franziska Glassmeier
In this study the authors use detailed multi-frequency radar observations in order to constrain key parameters in a 2-moment bulk microphysics scheme that are important for the parameterization of snow aggregation. The authors examine the problem in detail in a simple 1D context and then expand their tests using a 3D LES model. Overall, I think this is a great paper and a solid piece of scientific work. I liked the authors’ initial premise that tuning of physics parameterizations based on “large-scale” results can be deceiving due to the potential for compensating model errors and their strategy of attacking the problem on an observation-based process level study. This paper is an excellent illustration of how to tune (constrain) a microphysics scheme on a process level – which is a difficult task – using observations.
I really do not have any constructive comments to add regarding things that could be improved in the paper, which I think is essentially publishable in its current form. The comments I made below are simply offered as food for thought for the authors, which they may wish to comment in the paper (as they see fit). Overall, great paper.