Evaluation of Satellite-Derived Signatures for Three Verified Hailstorms in Central Argentina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of: Evaluation of Satellite-derived Signatures for Three Verified Hailstorms in Central Argentina
By: Anthony Crespo Bernal Ayala, Angela K. Rowe, Lucia E. Arena, Ankur R. Desai
Recommendation: Minor revision
Overview
This study investigated the environmental and convective properties of three hailstorms in central Argentina using multiple types of observations including in-situ measurements and remote sensing data. The authors focused on the satellite-derived signatures of the hailstorms, which is quiet important for improving the short-term hail forecasting. The authors have provided detailed analysis of the three hailstorms. I only have a few questions.
- The authors used the brightness temperature for investigation of convective clouds, such as using local minimum 10.35-μm Tb, maximum tri-spectral difference, and maximum difference between 8.5- and 11.2- μm Tb as a proxy for storm strength, the mass of ice crystals in the cloud, and the predominant ice crystal size in the cloud in Figs. 8, 14, and 20. It is not very convenient to understand the macro- or microphysical properties from these figures since we usually use vertical velocity (m/s), mixing ratio (or mass concentration, kg/kg) and particle size (like effective radius, μm) for above properties. Hence, can the authors convert the values of brightness temperature into the parameters we commonly use?
- L391: “3.28. February…” should be “3.2 8 February…”?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present 3 case studies of verified hailstorms in the Cordoba, Argentina region, and characterize them from a satellite perspective using GOES-16 ABI data. I found it very interesting, especially because of the utilization of the use of hail samples collected by the citizen science program “Cosecheros de Granizo”, which allows a more complete characterization of the cases that would not be possible without this invaluable information. In general, to the extent of my knowledge, the article is well written and the results arise from the Figures presented.
I have some comments that are detailed below, but in general my recommendation is for the article to be accepted after some minor revision.
Specific Comments:
With respect to the MCs case, do you think that it is possible that embedded within all the convective activity there was a supercell, maybe short-lived, associated with the 8-cm hail report? I understand that the cell is in the external domain of the RMA1-Córdoba radar and probably the radial velocity fields may be very noisy, given all the convection developing between the radar and the cell. However, the size of the hail is suggesting that maybe this could be the case, what do you think?
Line 28: “In the U.S. alone, damage from hail storms can exceed 1 billion dollars [1,2].” Over which time period?
Line 93: About Borque (2020): “This study only focused on a supercellular system relating GOES-16 data to severe weather with no hail verification.” I believe that in that paper there are verified hail reports (e.g. see flags in their Figures 1, 5). Please check.
Line 187: “These data were unavailable for 8 February and 14 December cases so cloud top height (12, 15, 16 km, respectively) was estimated using soundings, radar imagery, and brightness temperatures.”
There are 3 cloud top heights for the 2 storms mentioned. The 12 km height is the one estimated for the 24 October case using the ABI algorithm? it is not clear, please clarify.
Line 255: “moved eastward toward the Sierras Comechingones, a mountain in the SDCs that can reach up to 3.0 km (Figure 1; blue circle).” Actually, the highest peak of the SDC is the Champaquí mountain which is 2790 m high, a little less than 3.0 km.
https://www.cordobaturismo.gov.ar/experiencia/cerro-champaqui/
Line 262: Always considered the 500 hPa to be an upper level but I guess that is debatable.
Line 271: authors mention that “The 1200 UTC 13 December sounding from Córdoba Airport (Figure 5) shows peak northerly flow of 25 kt at 850 hPa consistent with the SALLJ”, but in the previous paragraph said that it “was 30 kt out of the north”. Which one is it? Please check.
Line 277: “Note that at this time, the 30-kt SALLJ core is elevated, occurring closer to 700 hPa (as described in more detail in Sasaki et al. (2022) [22]), with a potential impact on wind shear and storm evolution.” Any hints of what you think are the possible impacts of a more elevated LLJ core?
Line 327: “At 0200 UTC, 20 min before the hail report in Villa del Dique, there are enhanced-V and Above-Anvil Cirrus Plume (AACP) signatures that previous literature has suggested could be indicative of severe weather (e.g., [2]).” It would be nice if you could point in Figure 6 where those signatures are observed. There is a lot of convective activity around the Villa del Dique report. The same for Figures 12 and 18.
Line 327: “from parallax-correctedsatellite data” add the missing space after “corrected”.
Line 389 and others: the authors mention repeatedly an “increase in ice mass in the cloud” inferred from the tri-spectral differences. Is that ice mass in the cloud top or through the full depth of it? Please clarify since this could be misinterpreted.
Line 408: “Both soundings in Figure 11 show a lack of a low-level jet and overall drier low levels compared to the 14 December case.” There is only one sounding in Figure 11.
Line 429: “SMN forecasters discussed on 8 February via Twitter that conditions were favorable for strong rains, isolated storms, and cloudburst of intense rain and snow, with no mention of forecasted hail for the region.” Do you have the link to this discussion? I found it hard to believe that the SMN issued a snow forecast for the Córdoba region on a February day in this situation. Maybe for the higher elevations of the Andes mountains, or the Patagonian region?
Line 434: “In this plot, the red box highlights the“southern” cell (no hail reports), the white box highlights the northern cell (hail reports ranging from 4 to 17 cm in diameter), and the black box shows the convective core analysis bounds for the northern cell.” From looking at Figure 12 it looks that there are more than one convective cell within the bounds of the red box, and even maybe a splitting process in the last two times (Fig. 12e-f). I suggest not to refer to it as a single cell and rather as a group of cells, or simply to reduce the extent of the red box.
Line 445: “although there is no confirmation of whether this cell produced hail as it occurred in a remote area.” I think that there are plenty of cities and roads in this area. Do you mean “remote” with respect to the main domain of the “Cosecheros de granizo” project or the RMA1 radar range?
Line 486: “Then brightness temperatures remain within an average of 202 K, varying no more than 3 K between 1830 and 2045 UTC, times in which hail was collected.” I see much greater temperature changes over that time period both in Figures 14a and 14b. Please revise.
Line 525: “it shows a low-level jet (30 kt winds around 850 hPa in the sounding)” I see 25 kts in the Figure, please check.
Line 525: “The brightness temperatures remain within an average of 218 K, varying no more than 4 K between 1800 and 2000 UTC (Figure 20b), times in which hail was collected.” Do you mean 4 K / 10 min? Again, there are much larger variations in temperature over that period. Please revise.
Line 616: Previous studies using hail proxies (e.g., [13]), model output (e.g., Rasmussen and Houze 2016), or limited radar datasets (e.g., [18]) noted that deep convective systems…” Is there a reason for the change in the notation of the references?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
