See attachment

This work addresses the impact of turbulence on snow microphysics using a synergy of ground-based observations. They demonstrate the how such collocated observations can be used to get a deeper understanding of microphysics-turbulence interactions. I do agree that it is a good idea to infer the impact of turbulent layer by comparing the observations above and blow it, as many retrieval assumptions do not stand in high turbulence. In particular, I admire that the authors have shown skillful data processing for a wide range of observations from multiple instruments.

Acknowledging the potential value of this work, I am expressing severe concerns on the used approach for data analysis. In addition, the current presentation lacks many details and it is challenging for evaluation. Overall, my recommendation is major revision. Please see below my comments,

I am very skeptical on the interpretation of shallow precipitation cases where the turbulent layer almost overlays with cloud top. Since you want to get snow microphysical signatures, your basic assumption is that the turbulence affects snow growth and ice nucleation should play a minor role. However, the turbulent layer is so close to the cloud top where ice nucleation is actively taking place that you cannot exclude the impact of ice nucleation. In this regard, you are not comparing snow before and after entering the turbulent layer. You may check Chellini, G. and Kneifel 2024, and see how you can disentangle the impact of turbulence.

I would suggest remove shallow precipitation cases. You may discuss how turbulence affects snow FORMATION in a separate study, but not here.

L108 How did you compute KDP from PHIDP? At W-band, you may expect non-Rayleigh scattering. How did you deal with the contamination of differential backscatter phase shift?

L117. Check the definition of ZDR. It is undoubtedly affected by particle concentration. I would simply remove this sentence.

L121. Not really true. Firstly, overall ZDR is not affected by spectral broadening. Then, speaking of the spectral analysis, spectral broadening may lead to smaller maximum spectral ZDR, but is not necessarily lowering all spectral ZDR.

Regarding the impact of turbulence on ZDR, I believe you are referring to more scattered canting angles in enhanced turbulence. See literature below,

Snow observations - more scattered canting angles in turbulence:

Garrett, T. J., Yuter, S. E., Fallgatter, C., Shkurko, K., Rhodes, S. R., & Endries, J. L. (2015). Orientations and aspect ratios of falling snow. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(11), 4617-4622.

Radar observations – ZDR response to more scattered canting angles:

Li, H., Moisseev, D., & von Lerber, A. (2018). How does riming affect dual‐polarization radar observations and snowflake shape?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(11), 6070-6081.

L134 What is VAP?

L136 How did you merge sonding and MWR data?

L146 In ARCTRIS framework, turbulence is estimated with O’Connor et al., 2010. What is the difference between the two approaches? Did you get consistent results from Vogl et al., 2024?

O’Connor, E. J., Illingworth, A. J., Brooks, I. M., Westbrook, C. D., Hogan, R. J., Davies, F., & Brooks, B. J. (2010). A method for estimating the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate from a vertically pointing Doppler lidar, and independent evaluation from balloon-borne in situ measurements. Journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology, 27(10), 1652-1664.

L207 Time-height plot of EDR should be given, so that the reviewer is convinced that the EDR retrieval and turbulence layer classification are reasonable.

L222 I do not see evidence of sublimation from Z. A quantitative comparison is needed.

L231 It is common to see velocity oscillations at cloud tops. Why did you attribute the formation of the turbulence layer to the mountain effect?

L234. This is not a good case showing the impact of turbulence. Ideally, you may show that the turbulent layer is located in the ice growth path. However, cloud top is in the turbulent layer in this case.

L238. Again, there is a critical inference issue for shallow precipitation cases. The turbulent layer almost overlays the cloud top, and ice nucleation processes are actively taking place in the turbulent layer. Then, when you are inferring ice growth processes by comparing the observations above and below the turbulent layer, you cannot rule out the role of ice nucleation and rapid deposition in local updrafts.

The nice part of Chellini and Kneifel (2024) is that the turbulent layer is well below the cloud top, and the impact of ice nucleation is minimized.

L295 Because of the concern given above, I am afraid that interpretating statistics in Fig. 10 is not well supported.

Fig 11. Some obvious issues.

1. Full physical meaning of the abbreviations should be given.
2. (a) & (c). High riming should fall in high LWP regions. However, the inverse is presented.
3. (d) & (g). Hight KDP and ZDRmax can simply a result of depositional growth in the turbulent layer, instead of secondary ice.
4. A conceptual diagram should be given.