<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">TC</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>The Cryosphere</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">TC</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">The Cryosphere</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1994-0424</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/tc-13-943-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Evaluation of CloudSat snowfall rate profiles by a comparison with in situ micro-rain radar observations in East Antarctica</article-title><alt-title>Comparison between CloudSat and in situ radar snowfall rates in East Antarctica</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Comparison between CloudSat and in situ radar snowfall rates in East Antarctica}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{F. Lemonnier et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lemonnier</surname><given-names>Florentin</given-names></name>
          <email>flemonnier@lmd.jussieu.fr</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3209-1256</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Madeleine</surname><given-names>Jean-Baptiste</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Claud</surname><given-names>Chantal</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Genthon</surname><given-names>Christophe</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Durán-Alarcón</surname><given-names>Claudio</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Palerme</surname><given-names>Cyril</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Berne</surname><given-names>Alexis</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Souverijns</surname><given-names>Niels</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4695-9754</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>van Lipzig</surname><given-names>Nicole</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Gorodetskaya</surname><given-names>Irina V.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-7823</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>L'Ecuyer</surname><given-names>Tristan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7584-4836</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Wood</surname><given-names>Norman</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8228-3910</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Laboratoire de Météorologie dynamique, Sorbonne Université, École normale supérieure, PSL Research University, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> École polytechnique, CNRS, LMD/IPSL, 75005 Paris, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>CNRS, Institut des Géosciences de l'Environnement, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Development Centre for Weather Forecasting, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Environmental Remote Sensing Laboratory, Environmental Engineering Institute, School of Architecture,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Civil and Environmental Engineering,
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Physics, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Florentin Lemonnier (flemonnier@lmd.jussieu.fr)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>943</fpage><lpage>954</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>29</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>22</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>1</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Florentin Lemonnier et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019.html">This article is available from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e226">The Antarctic continent is a vast desert and is the coldest and the most
unknown area on Earth. It contains the Antarctic ice sheet, the largest
continental water reservoir on Earth that could be affected by the current
global warming, leading to sea level rise. The only significant supply of ice
is through precipitation, which can be observed from the surface and from
space. Remote-sensing observations of the coastal regions and the inner
continent using CloudSat radar give an estimated rate of snowfall but with
uncertainties twice as large as each single measured value, whereas climate
models give a range from half to twice the space–time-averaged observations.
The aim of this study is the evaluation of the vertical precipitation rate
profiles of CloudSat radar by comparison with two surface-based micro-rain
radars (MRRs), located at the coastal French Dumont d'Urville station and at
the Belgian Princess Elisabeth station located in the Dronning Maud Land
escarpment zone. This in turn leads to a better understanding and
reassessment of CloudSat uncertainties. We compared a total of four
precipitation events, two per station, when CloudSat overpassed within 10 km
of the station and we compared these two different datasets at each vertical
level. The correlation between both datasets is near-perfect, even though
climatic and geographic conditions are different for the two stations. Using
different CloudSat and MRR vertical levels, we obtain 10 km space-scale and
short-timescale (a few seconds) CloudSat uncertainties from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % up to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %. This confirms the robustness of the CloudSat retrievals of snowfall
over Antarctica above the blind zone and justifies further analyses of this
dataset.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e256">In the context of global warming, predicting the evolution of the Antarctic
ice sheet is a major challenge. Snowfall is the main input of the ice sheet
mass balance, but it is difficult to estimate its amount. Indeed
precipitation characteristics depend on the region of Antarctica. In coastal
areas, precipitation is influenced by cyclones and fronts
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.1"/>, and a few times a year these fronts intrude on
the high continental plateau, likely bringing most of the snow accumulation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="paren.2"/>. The remaining annual precipitation rate
is in the form of “diamond dust” (thin ice crystals) under clear-sky
conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4 bib1.bibx8" id="paren.3"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page944?><p id="d1e268"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Some field campaigns with in situ observations were conducted to estimate
local snow accumulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx7" id="paren.4"/>, but
ground-based measurements are difficult in Antarctica, and the size of this
continent (twice the size of Australia) does not permit one to cover and
study the whole occurrence, rate and distribution of precipitation. Moreover,
accumulation observed from stake measurements is a poor proxy for snowfall as
it is strongly affected by local winds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.5"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e278">CloudSat and its cloud-profiling radar (CPR) provide the first real
opportunity to estimate the precipitation at a polar continental scale
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx17" id="paren.6"/>. Since August 2006, CloudSat has
been observing solid precipitation through the atmosphere, which led to the
first multi-year, model-independent climatology of Antarctic precipitation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.7"/>. Using two CloudSat products to determine the
frequency, the rate and the phase of precipitation, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="text.8"/>
established a mean snowfall rate from August 2006 to April 2011 of
171 mm w.e. year<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the Antarctic ice sheet, north of
82<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="text.9"/> recently revisited the data and reduced this
estimate to 160 mm w.e. year<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. It is worth noting that this rate is
given at an altitude of about 1200 m above ground level (m a.g.l.) due to
the reflectivity of snow interfering with radar waves near the surface (the
so-called ground clutter; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="altparen.10"/>). It should be taken
into account that close to the coastal areas and over the ocean, this
vertical limit for observation can be lower. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="text.11"/> showed that there is a good
agreement between CloudSat and ERA-Interim precipitation over Dronning Maud
Land, responsible for the total ice sheet mass anomalies detected by the
GRACE satelite, but currently the
estimated uncertainties for the satellite snowfall rate range between
50 % and 175 % <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.12"/>.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="text.13"/> showed that ERA-Interim is also in good
agreement with CloudSat at the continental scale.</p>
      <p id="d1e339">In January 2010, a first micro-rain radar (MRR) used for precipitation
studies was installed in Antarctica at the Belgian Princess Elisabeth station
in the escarpment zone of Dronning Maud Land (PE station;
71<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>57<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>21<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E at 1392 m above ground level) in
the context of the Belgian project HYDRANT (The Atmospheric branch of the
HYDRological cycle in ANTarctica) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.14"/>. The PE
station is located in the escarpment zone of Dronning Maud Land with Sør
Rondane mountains to the south of it (for a detailed description of the
station's meteorological conditions, see
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="altparen.15"/>, and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="altparen.16"/>).
In November 2015, in the context of the French–Swiss APRES3 project
(Antarctic Precipitation, Remote Sensing from Surface and Space), new
instruments were deployed at the French station Dumont d'Urville on the coast
of Adélie Land in East Antarctica (DDU station; 66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>00<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E at 42 m a.g.l.) leading to unprecedented weather radar
observations of precipitation by a scanning X-band polarimetric radar and a
K-band vertically profiling micro-rain radar
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.17"/>. A comparison of MRR- and CloudSat-derived
surface snowfall product showed that CloudSat is able to accurately represent
the snowfall climatology with biases smaller than 15 %, outperforming
ERA-Interim <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.18"/>. Moreover, CloudSat's blind zone (lowest
measurement available at about 1200 m above the surface) leads to surface
precipitation amounts being underestimated by about 10 % on average,
although differences during specific events can be much larger
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.19"/>. This paper focuses on the vertical structure of
precipitation.</p>
      <p id="d1e435">With the aim of improving CloudSat radar uncertainty estimates using
ground-based observations, CloudSat snowfall retrievals over Dumont d'Urville
and Princess Elisabeth stations were compared with MRR data on a total of
four concurrently recorded snowfall events. During the MRR observation
periods, there were 14 overflights over the DDU station and 63 over the PE
station. These overflights are short, typically a few seconds, explaining why
we actually detected snow for only four of them. According to these events
and using the deviation of CloudSat precipitation rates from MRR
observations, the CloudSat snowfall uncertainties were reassessed. A systematic difference is found between
CloudSat and the ground radars, by comparing their very low snowfall rates.
This difference could be due to limitations in sensitivity or attenuation of
the MRRs.</p>
      <p id="d1e438">As a first step, we characterize the general weather conditions of the four
cases (Sect. 3.1). Then, a comparison is done between CloudSat and the
vertical MRRs' precipitation profiles (Sect. 4.1 and 4.2). From this
comparison we highlight a systematic difference (Sect. 4.3); then from a
statistical study described in Appendix A, a nearly perfect correlation
between MRR and CloudSat datasets is derived (Sect. 4.4). To conclude, we
assess a new range of CloudSat uncertainties at short timescale (a few
seconds) and 10 km space scale (Sect. 4.4).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>CloudSat cloud-profiling radar</title>
      <p id="d1e452">The CloudSat cloud-profiling radar is a nadir-looking 94 GHz radar which
measures the signal backscattered by hydrometeors. Radar reflectivity
profiles are divided into 150 vertical bins with a resolution of 240 m, with
a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> footprint and up to 82<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of latitude. CloudSat has
been operating fulltime since April 2006 but because of a dysfunctional
onboard battery has been only able to provide daylight observations since
April 2011. The satellite is characterized by a period of 16 days, so it
exactly overpasses a location every 16 days. The DDU station is overpassed by a
descending orbit, whereas the PE station is overpassed by ascending and descending
orbits, which are less than 10 km away from each station. The CloudSat vertical<?pagebreak page945?> bins
are relative to the geoid, and depending on the altitude where the stations
are located, the first exploitable bin (out of the ground clutter alteration
altitude) varies significantly. Moreover, in locations where the ice does not
interfere much with the radar signal (ocean and some coastal areas), the
ground clutter layer is thinner and lower altitude bins can be used. We are
using at the DDU station CloudSat profiles from the fourth bin, which is located at 961 m a.g.l. At the PE station the first exploitable bin is the fifth, which is located at
1043 m a.g.l. We use the 2C-SNOW-PROFILE product <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.20"/> which
retrieves profiles of liquid-equivalent snowfall rates. The product is based
on assumptions on snow particle size distribution, microphysical and
scattering properties which induce many uncertainties in the calculation of
the relationship between radar reflectivity and snowfall rate (see Sect. 2.2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Micro-rain radars</title>
      <p id="d1e494">The MRR is a vertically profiling Doppler radar operating at a frequency of
24.3 GHz (K band) with a beamwidth of 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (around 50 m in diameter
at a 3000 m altitude). At both stations, the resolution was set to 100 m
per bin, ranging from 300 m – for the first valid available measurements –
to 3000 m. However, we only consider the data up to 2500 m because of the
change in the snow microphysical properties above this altitude
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.21"/>. The MRR's raw measurement – Doppler
spectral densities – is available at a 10 s temporal resolution. The
collected data were processed using the IMProTool developed by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.22"/>. At the DDU station, the radar reflectivity derived from
MRR was calibrated by comparison with a colocated X-band polarimetric radar
over the period from December 2015 to January 2016 (for more details, see
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="altparen.23"/>). Through this calibration with the second
radar, the reflectivity (at X band) is converted into snowfall rates using a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.24"/>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M19" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">76</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.91</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the radar reflectivity (in dBZ), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the snowfall
rate (in mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.25"/> proposed a range of
values of 69–83 for the prefactor and 0.78–1.09 for the exponent
corresponding to a confidence interval of 95 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e600">For the instrument operating at the PE station, hereafter called MRR2, the
average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relation is given by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.26"/>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M24" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.10</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The range of prefactor, 11–43, and exponent, 0.97–1.17, for this equation
spans a confidence interval of 40 % due to the summation of uncertainties
in particle size, shape, measurement and conversion from reflectivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
to snowfall rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For this study, the MRR2 data used are
processed with the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.27"/> algorithm. Unlike
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.28"/>, we did not calibrate the ground radar
dataset with CloudSat reflectivities (1) because we want an independent
evaluation of the CloudSat CPR dataset and (2) because we do not consider
surface precipitation rate comparisons. The mean precipitation profiles
obtained over the MRR observation periods (2015–2016 for the DDU station and
2012 for the PE station) were also used to evaluate how typical the
four precipitation events are <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.29"/>. They are obtained
using the same <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships as the ones introduced
earlier (see Eqs. 1 and 2) and are separated into quantiles. According to
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.30"/>, the minimum detection of both MRRs varies between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBZ, corresponding to 0.00122–0.00546 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the DDU
station and 0.00385–0.0135 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the PE station. However, these
values correspond to theoretical cases of clear sky. Therefore we analyzed
the density probability functions of the MRR1 (DDU station MRR) at
three different levels to determine a minimum threshold of detectability of
ground radars (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.F2"/> in Appendix). We used the lowest level
out of the ground clutter layer (about 1200 m a.g.l.) and selected a
threshold of 0.005 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (see the vertical dashed line in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.F2"/> in Appendix).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Radiosondes</title>
      <p id="d1e770">A radiosonde is a meteorological device containing a set of sensors to
measure the characteristics of the atmosphere from ground level to an
altitude ranging from 25 up to 30 km. Parameters measured are temperature,
relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction and pressure.</p>
      <p id="d1e773">At the DDU station, the radiosonde system used is a METEOMODEM M10. The relative humidity
accuracy is 3 % and its temporal resolution is 2 s. The temperature
measurement is realized every 1 s with an accuracy of 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. At the PE station, the
ground receiving systems used are GRAW-GS-E and GRAW radiosondes DFM-09-QRE.
Relative humidity is measured with an accuracy of 3 % and a temporal
resolution of 4 s. The accuracy and the temporal resolution of the
temperature measurements are 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and 3–4 s.</p>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e796">Weather conditions and instrumental characteristics for the DDU and
the PE stations. Wind velocity is vertically averaged over the first 3 km of
the atmosphere. Times are converted from UTC and displayed in local time
(LT); the DDU station is UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 and the PE station is UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>03. The
asterisk denotes that weather conditions were retrieved from ERA-Interim
profiles instead of a radiosonde. The date format is
yyyy/mm/dd.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Dumont d'Urville </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">Princess Elisabeth </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2016/02/17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2016/03/20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2011/02/16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2015/01/13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wind averaged velocity (km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">22.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">25.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">18.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">32.48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CloudSat track length (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16.23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Start time of CloudSat obs. (LT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15:44:14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15:44:24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">01:53:48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16:42:37</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">End time of CloudSat obs. (LT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15:44:43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15:44:53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">01:53:50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16:42:41</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Start time of MRR obs. (LT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15:21:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15:26:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">01:34:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16:26:00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">End time of MRR obs. (LT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16:07:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16:02:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">02:12:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">17:00:00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiosounding time (LT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10:00:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10:00:00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">03:00:00<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13:58:00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Meteorological conditions of the four recorded snowfall events</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Event characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e1022">We summarize in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> the characteristics of the four recorded
precipitation cases when both CloudSat and ground-based MRRs simultaneously
record a snowfall event and when the satellite is in the vicinity of the
stations. Due to the CloudSat delay of revisit, satellite overflights near
the DDU station are located either less than 10 km or more than 80 km
away. CloudSat tracks passing through a radius of 10 km around each station
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>) were selected. Each CloudSat flyby over a
station takes less than 10 s and covers a distance between 11.90 and
17.33 km. We consider that the<?pagebreak page946?> four associated weather systems are static
with regards to the CloudSat satellite overfly. However, MRRs are stationary and
local precipitation patterns are typically associated with transient
large-scale and mesoscale weather systems. We therefore analyzed the synoptic conditions
by using radiosonde data and reanalysis (ERA-Interim) from the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in order to determine the
adequate MRR time series corresponding to CloudSat observations. We estimated
a duration for which MRR observing conditions agree most with those of
CloudSat using the following equation:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M39" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">avg</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sat</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wind</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">avg</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the temporal range of the MRR
observations including the CloudSat
overflight dates, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sat</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the length of the track inside
the 10 km radius area over stations and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wind</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vertically
averaged wind velocity. All characteristics are shown in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1104"><bold>(a)</bold> CloudSat radar
tracks passing over the French Dumont d'Urville station (DDU) in red for the
17 February 2016 and in blue for the 20 March 2016. <bold>(b)</bold> CloudSat
radar tracks passing over the Belgian Princess Elisabeth station (PE) in
green for the 16 February 2011 and in magenta for the 13 January 2015. We
only considered the measured profiles passing within a 10 km radius
represented by a white disc around the stations. The background image is the
hill-shaded topography obtained with MODIS MOA2004
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.31"/>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <title>Events at the DDU station</title>
      <p id="d1e1126">The 17 February  2016 precipitation event at the DDU station was overflown by
CloudSat at local afternoon time. It occurred on the edge of a low-pressure
system which was approaching the station, in agreement with the radiosounding
launched in the morning at 09:00 LT. Indeed, as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>b, c, above 1.5 km, a westerly wind brings moisture and a
warmer air mass. The radiosounding also shows wind with a continental origin
below 1 km which brings relatively dry air. The recorded precipitation
profile (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a) presents a low-level sublimation
below 1 km and thus suggests that this layer might be dried by continental
winds, according to wind direction, relative humidity and temperature
profiles.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1135">Vertical profiles of the lower-tropospheric meteorological
parameters over DDU and PE stations for the four precipitation events. The
radiosonde launch times are summarized in Table 1.
<bold>(a, d, g, j)</bold> The first column shows each station location, selected
CloudSat tracks and their directions. The white disk represents a
10 km radius area around each station in which we consider the CloudSat
measurements. <bold>(a–c)</bold> 17 February 2016; <bold>(d–f)</bold> 20 March
2016; <bold>(g–i)</bold> 15 February 2011; <bold>(j–l)</bold> 13 January 2015. The
background image is the hill-shaded topography obtained with MODIS MOA2004
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.32"/>. <bold>(b, e, h, k)</bold> The second column shows wind
velocities (blue solid line) and wind directions (0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> indicating from
the north) (red solid line) over the stations gathered with radiosoundings,
except for panel <bold>(h)</bold>, which is obtained with ERA-Interim.
<bold>(c, f, i, l)</bold> The third column shows air temperatures (red solid
line) and relative humidities with respect to ice (blue solid line) over the
stations obtained with radiosoundings, except for panel <bold>(i)</bold>, which is deduced
from ERA-Interim.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1186"><bold>(a)</bold> Comparison between CloudSat (blue dots with 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
standard deviation bars) and MRR (red solid line with shaded area
representing a 95 % confidence interval) for the 17 February 2016
precipitation event at the DDU station. <bold>(b)</bold> Same as
panel <bold>(a)</bold> for the 20 March 2016 event at the DDU station.
<bold>(c)</bold> Comparison between CloudSat (blue dots with 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> standard
deviation bars) and MRR (red solid line with shaded area representing a
40 % confidence interval) for the 15 February 2011 precipitation event at
the PE station. <bold>(d)</bold> Same as panel <bold>(c)</bold> for the 13 January
2015 event at the PE station. The mean precipitation profile obtained over a
long period of observation is also shown and separated into quantiles. The
gray  dashed lines represent the 20th
and 80th quantiles, the dark dashed line represents the 50th quantile and the
solid line represents the average of the vertical structure of precipitation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.33"/>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1231">Located between two low-pressure systems, the 20 March 2016
radiosounding is characterized by a shear between continental and oceanic
winds below 500 m, marked by an inversion of relative humidity (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>e, f). Being at the rear margin
of the first passing low-pressure system, it explains the easterly origin of
the oceanic winds. It is followed by a strong event recorded in the afternoon by
the radars, with katabatic winds blowing down the ice cap and sublimating
precipitation at low altitude below 1000 m (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b). This kind of dry air leading to significant
low-level sublimation of snowfall is well documented by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="text.34"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <title>Events at the PE station</title>
      <p id="d1e1247">To analyze the vertical meteorological profiles at the Princess Elisabeth
station we used ERA-Interim reanalysis, due to the absence of an air-sounding
campaign during the third precipitation event period. The 15 February
2011 precipitation night event is characterized by a large low-pressure
system northwest of the PE station blocked by a high-pressure ridge to the
east directing a strong moisture flux defined as an atmospheric river
directly to the PE station. It is a significant snowfall event that caused
an anomalous increase in Dronning Maud Land's surface mass balance
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.35"/>. The westerly origin of the high-altitude wind
observed in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> is dominated by the circumpolar
atmospheric circulation. At the resolution of the reanalysis (0.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in
longitude and latitude), it is difficult to observe any orographic impact on
the weather around the Princess Elisabeth station.</p>
      <p id="d1e1264">The fourth observed radiosounding, released 3 h before the 13 January
2015 afternoon event, is explained by a low-pressure system
located northwest of the PE station and a strong easterly wind which is
constant in altitude (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>k). The temperature and relative humidity suggest
cloudy weather with a dryer and hotter boundary layer (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>l). The observed precipitation profile suggests in-cloud
snowfall and virga (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>d). This is confirmed with
a backscatter profile measured by a ceilometer installed at the PE station (see
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.F1"/> in Appendix) which observed a passing cloud over the station
during the recording of the precipitation event by CloudSat and the MRR.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page947?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Estimation of the confidence intervals in CloudSat reports</title>
      <p id="d1e1283">All CloudSat measurements were selected within a 10 km radius from each station and averaged for each
vertical bin. A variance in the CloudSat retrievals is computed for the
duration of each overpass (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.F3"/> in Appendix).</p>
      <p id="d1e1288">The MRR confidence intervals are calculated using the range of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameters given by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.36"/> for
the Dumont d'Urville station and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.37"/> for the
Princess Elisabeth station. At the DDU station, according to
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.38"/>, for an altitude higher than 2500 m where
there is a crystal dominance for precipitation, the parameterizations used
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conversion are not adapted anymore. That is why MRR
measurements are considered and compared to equivalent CloudSat vertical bins
only in the first 2500 m of the atmosphere. In contrast with the coastal
areas, we would expect less riming at the PE station compared to the DDU
station, while aggregates are expected to occur at the PE station given the
measured large particle sizes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.39"/>. Also the low
variability in the vertical profile of mean Doppler vertical velocity at the
PE station suggests that aggregation and/or riming of particles is not
frequent in this region and hydrometeor type is relatively constant in the
vertical profile <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.40"/>. Without this change in the
proportion of the different hydrometeors, the ground-based
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships would be still valid higher up.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Precipitation profiles</title>
      <p id="d1e1373">Focusing on the Dumont d'Urville station, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a
shows a good agreement between CloudSat and the MRR's snowfall rates for each
vertical level. Indeed, an averaged satellite precipitation rate at all levels
is included within the 95 % MRR confidence interval. The MRR profile
presents a maximum of the snowfall rate of 0.75 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 750 m and an
inversion of the precipitation rate likely due to low-level sublimation
processes, whereas the ground clutter prevents CloudSat from seeing the
inversion. This precipitation event is likely generated by the passage of the
second low-pressure system, as described previously using the corresponding
radiosounding. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="text.41"/>, this precipitation
event is representative of the climatology of the DDU station as it lies between the 20th
and 80th quantiles (indicated by grey dashed line) with a shape similar to
the average climatology in solid black line.</p>
      <?pagebreak page949?><p id="d1e1393">According to Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b, there is a poor concordance
between the two datasets for low snowfall rate values. The MRR recorded
low-level strong values until a null signal of precipitation from 1000 m
upward, where CloudSat still recorded small but significant rates. An
inversion of the precipitation rate at low levels is also observed under the
maximum precipitation rate of 1 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 600 m. The strong gradient of this
inversion is likely due to katabatic wind effects, which can drastically dry
out atmospheric layers when blowing down from the ice cap. This event shows
that the use of CloudSat for surface precipitation determination may be
problematic in certain conditions for a specific event. It is also important
to note that this event is an anomalous climatological event at the DDU station, in
comparison with the quantiles of the vertical structure of precipitation both
in terms of snowfall rate and shape.</p>
      <p id="d1e1410">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c shows a good agreement between the four
lowest values of CloudSat observations and the MRR profile. Indeed, every
averaged satellite measurement is included in the 40 % confidence
interval, but the standard deviations indicate a large dispersion. Above this
altitude precipitation rate is small and the agreement is weaker. This is
similar to what is observed in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b. CloudSat
observes again a small signal of precipitation where MRR recorded a null
snowfall rate, suggesting some limitations in the sensitivity or attenuation
of the MRRs but also a satellite sensitivity for low snowfall rates. This
event is an important anomalous climatological event at the PE station
because the observed snowfall rates are much higher than the snowfall rates
of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="text.42"/> climatology. This is caused by the passage of an atmospheric river over the
station.</p>
      <?pagebreak page950?><p id="d1e1420">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>d snowfall rates observed by both CloudSat and
MRRs are quite low compared to the three other cases but the agreement
remains good for the five lower satellite levels. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="text.43"/>, this precipitation
event is representative of the climatology of the PE station with in
particular the presence of virga with very low precipitation rates included
between the high and low quantiles.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Agreement between CloudSat and MRR datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e1434">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> represents the correlation for (all data,
all levels) CloudSat and MRR precipitation reports for the four events using
the error bars shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>. Error bars for the
MRRs are implemented by using the confidence intervals obtained with the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relations. Large error bars correspond to the PE
station's MRR and smaller ones represent the DDU stations's MRR confidence
interval. CloudSat error bars represent the variance of measurements
collected along the swath. A linear regression fit between CloudSat and MRRs
is performed and shows a good correlation between both datasets.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1461">Scatter plot of the MRR and CloudSat snowfall rates in mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
with the linear regression (thick black dashed line). The error bars are
computed using the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relations (cf.Sect. 2.2.) for the MRR
and standard deviations at each vertical bin for CloudSat. The grey dashed
line represents the 1 : 1 line for a perfect
correlation.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Evidence of a difference between both snowfall rate measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e1506">A previous study by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.44"/> showed that CloudSat-measured ice
cloud reflectivity is 1 dB higher than an airborne cloud radar, and
following a statistical evaluation with basic cloud properties and five
ground-based sites a weighted-mean difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which ranges from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBZ to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBZ, is observed when a period of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h around
the CloudSat overpass is considered.
According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.45"/>, CloudSat tends to observe lighter
snowfall events (smaller than 2 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in comparison with the
NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (NOAA/NSSL) multi-radar multi-sensor (MRMS/Q3).</p>
      <p id="d1e1569">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b shows that CloudSat can report small but
significant snowfall when the MRR signal is virtually zero. The shift between
the two instruments is estimated in this case at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.040</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Looking at Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c for the three last CloudSat
bins above 2 km height, an averaged snowfall rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.033</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
is observed when the MRR signal at the PE station is null. Concerning Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>d, a similar value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.030</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is
recorded by CloudSat, but this time MRR also records a similar signal of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.029</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.008</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This difference in measured values suggests a
difference in sensitivity of the two radars even if these measured rates are
above the MRR detection limit of 0.005 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Sect. 2.2). This shift in
snowfall rates could either be due to a strong attenuation of the MRR
backscattered signal with the altitude or due to the detection of cloud water by
the CPR as it is more sensitive to small atmospheric particles and clouds.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Calculation of the CloudSat uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e1702">The CloudSat 2C-SNOW-PROFILE product already contains its own uncertainties
estimates, calculated from hypothetical parameters such as the
mass–diameter distribution of the hydrometeors, their microphysical and scattering
properties. Our analysis suggests that under Antarctic (and probably polar)
conditions, this uncertainty can be significantly reduced. By assuming that
CloudSat and MRR snowfall rates datasets follow a normally distributed
deviation from the mean, a correlation coefficient is calculated in order to
establish the degree of similarity between both observations. By using the
covariance of both data records, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.99,
which confirms a very good agreement between both radar data (see Appendix).</p>
      <p id="d1e1705">For each CloudSat vertical bin, we calculated the distance of satellite
measurement to the corresponding interpolated MRR observation. We averaged
these values by weighting them with the MRR confidence intervals and we found
a range of CloudSat uncertainties from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e1736">CloudSat remote-sensing observations were compared with two in situ
micro-rain radars at the coastal French Dumont d'Urville and mountainous
Belgian Princess Elisabeth stations in East Antarctica. The comparison of
four cases of precipitation that coincide with CloudSat observations shows a
near-perfect correlation. This comparison also reveals a difference in the
CloudSat dataset with respect to the MRR for very light precipitation. This
might be precipitable cloud water recorded by CloudSat or an MRR limitation
due to a strong attenuation of the signal through important precipitation.
From our correlation and statistical studies based on<?pagebreak page951?> the quantification of
the CloudSat deviation to the MRR values, we assessed new CloudSat
precipitation uncertainties ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % based on
this short-time and small space-scale study. This new assessment of the
CloudSat uncertainties, in spite of the limited number of events, provides
confidence in the retrieval given the different climatic and geographical
conditions of the two stations. It also justifies further analysis of this
dataset in this region of the globe, where snowfall is critical and poorly
known. Subsequent studies using weak precipitation rates profiles over other
Antarctic regions, particularly in the interior of the continent, will
strengthen the robustness of this new range of uncertainties and corroborate
the difference recorded by both CPR and MRRs. Moreover, the Earth Cloud
Aerosol and Radiation Explorer (EarthCare) spaceborne radar, with a much better vertical resolution, should be
even more instructive and improve our understanding of clouds and snowfall in
the polar regions, where field observations are so hard to perform.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1767">Data from the micro-rain radar at Dumont d'Urville station
were obtained with the logistical support of the French Polar institute
(IPEV; program CALVA) and are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.882565" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.882565</ext-link>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.46"/>. CloudSat data are freely available via the CloudSat Data
Processing Center (<uri>http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/</uri>, last
access: 11 January 2018). Data from the micro-rain radar at the Princess
Elisabeth station can be obtained at <uri>http://www.aerocloud.be</uri> (last
access: 11 January 2018).</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><app-group>

<?pagebreak page952?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <title>Calculation of the correlation factor between CloudSat and MRRs</title>
      <p id="d1e1791">In order to compute the correlation between both datasets, we assume that
both the MRR's and CloudSat's deviations from the average follow a
Gaussian-shaped distribution. The MRR data have a Gaussian-shaped distribution,
according to this confidence interval calculation. CloudSat deviation from the
mean measurements also follows a Gaussian-shaped distribution, as shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.F3"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> shows an evident
linear fit between both datasets.</p>
      <p id="d1e1798">Because of different vertical-bin altitudes, the MRR snowfall rates were linearly
interpolated at the CloudSat data levels. Covariance of both data populations
was calculated by the following equation:

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M73" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cov</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDSi</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRRi</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDSi</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRRi</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the snowfall rate values for CloudSat and
MRR and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> the averaged snowfall
rates of both datasets. By calculating the standard deviations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from
the mean of each instrument, a covariance matrix was obtained and used to
determine the correlation factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between both datasets:
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M80" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cov</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MRR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2004">We applied this calculation with both MRR and CloudSat radar datasets and
calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.99 as discussed in Sect. 4.2 and
shown by a dashed line in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F1"><label>Figure AA.1</label><caption><p id="d1e2011">Ceilometer backscatter profile at the PE station on 13 January 2015.
The backscattered reflectivity suggests a passing cloud with in-cloud
precipitation and virga.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F2"><label>Figure AA.2</label><caption><p id="d1e2024">Density functions of the corrected 1 min <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values at
three different heights (300 m; 1.2 km, lowest value of CloudSat; and 3 km) at
the DDU station and the respective snowfall rates.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F3"><label>Figure AA.3</label><caption><p id="d1e2046">Distribution of the deviation from the averaged values of CloudSat
snowfall rate for all vertical levels. The deviation from the average is
calculated for each considered vertical bin and for each
overpass.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/13/943/2019/tc-13-943-2019-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2061">FL led the analysis and drafted the paper. JBM, CC and CG
supervised the project. CDA and AB provided the MRR data for the Dumont
d'Urville station. NS, NvL and IVG provided the MRR data for the Princess
Elisabeth station. NW and TL provided the CloudSat data. All authors
discussed the results and commented on the paper. IVG processed the Fig. A1
and CDA processed the Fig. A2 during the review process. CP contributed to
the understanding and study of the CloudSat data.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2067">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2073">This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (grant number: ANR-15-CE01-0003). This work was supported by the Belgian Science
Policy Office (BELSPO; grant number BR/143/A2/AEROCLOUD) and the Research
Foundation Flanders (FWO; grant number G0C2215N). Irina V. Gorodetskaya thanks
the following for financial support: CESAM (UID/AMB/50017/2019), the FCT/MEC (through national
funds) and co-funding by FEDER (within the PT2020 Partnership
Agreement and Compete 2020). The authors thank Jacopo Grazioli for his help
and advice during the review period and Anna-Lea Albright as well as Max Popp
for their proofreading.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Florent Dominé<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Arthern et al.(2006)Arthern, Winebrenner, and
Vaughan</label><mixed-citation>Arthern, R. J., Winebrenner, D. P., and Vaughan, D. G.: Antarctic snow
accumulation mapped using polarization of 4.3-cm wavelength microwave
emission, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D06107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005667" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005667</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Berne et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Berne, A., Grazioli, J., and Genthon, C.: Snowfall rate estimates derived
from a micro rain radar (MRR) at the Dumont d'Urville station, Adelie Land,
East Antarctica, link to netCDF file, PANGAEA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.882565" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.882565</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Boening et al.(2012)Boening, Lebsock, Landerer, and
Stephens</label><mixed-citation>Boening, C., Lebsock, M., Landerer, F., and Stephens, G.: Snowfall-driven mass
change on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21501, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053316" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL053316</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bromwich(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
Bromwich, D. H.: Snowfall in high southern latitudes, Rev. Geophys.,
26, 149–168, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Chen et al.(2016)Chen, Hong, Kulie, Behrangi, Stepanian, Cao, You,
Zhang, Hu, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, S., Hong, Y., Kulie, M., Behrangi, A., Stepanian, P. M., Cao, Q., You,
Y., Zhang, J., Hu, J., and Zhang, X.: Comparison of snowfall estimates from
the NASA CloudSat cloud profiling radar and NOAA/NSSL multi-radar
multi-sensor system, J. Hydrol., 541, 862–872, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Dur{\'{a}}n-Alarc{\'{o}}n et~al.(2019)Dur{\'{a}}n-Alarc{\'{o}}n,
Boudevillain, Grazioli, Souverijns, Van~Lipzig, Gorodetskaya, and
Berne}}?><label>Durán-Alarcón et al.(2019)Durán-Alarcón,
Boudevillain, Grazioli, Souverijns, Van Lipzig, Gorodetskaya, and
Berne</label><mixed-citation>Durán-Alarcón, C., Boudevillain, B., Genthon, C., Grazioli, J.,
Souverijns, N., van Lipzig, N. P. M., Gorodetskaya, I. V., and Berne, A.: The
vertical structure of precipitation at two stations in East Antarctica
derived from micro rain radars, The Cryosphere, 13, 247–264,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-247-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-13-247-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Eisen et al.(2008)Eisen, Frezzotti, Genthon, Isaksson, Magand,
van den Broeke, Dixon, Ekaykin, Holmlund, Kameda et al.</label><mixed-citation>Eisen, O., Frezzotti, M., Genthon, C., Isaksson, E., Magand, O., van den
Broeke, M. R., Dixon, D. A., Ekaykin, A., Holmlund, P., Kameda, T.,
Karlöf, L., Kaspari, S., Lipenkov, V. Y., Oerter, H., Takahashi, S., and
Vaughan, D. G.:
Ground-based measurements of spatial and temporal variability of snow
accumulation in East Antarctica, Rev. Geophys., 46, RG2001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006RG000218" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006RG000218</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Fujita and Abe(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Fujita, K. and Abe, O.: Stable isotopes in daily precipitation at Dome Fuji,
East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18503, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026936" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL026936</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Genthon et al.(2016)Genthon, Six, Scarchilli, Ciardini, and
Frezzotti</label><mixed-citation>
Genthon, C., Six, D., Scarchilli, C., Ciardini, V., and Frezzotti, M.:
Meteorological and snow accumulation gradients across Dome C, East Antarctic
plateau, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 455–466, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2013)Gorodetskaya, Van Lipzig, Van den Broeke,
Mangold, Boot, and Reijmer</label><mixed-citation>
Gorodetskaya, I. V., Van Lipzig, N., Van den Broeke, M., Mangold, A., Boot,
W.,
and Reijmer, C.: Meteorological regimes and accumulation patterns at
Utsteinen, Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica: Analysis of two contrasting
years, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1700–1715, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2014)Gorodetskaya, Tsukernik, Claes, Ralph, Neff,
and Van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Gorodetskaya, I. V., Tsukernik, M., Claes, K., Ralph, M. F., Neff, W. D., and
Van Lipzig, N. P.: The role of atmospheric rivers in anomalous snow
accumulation in East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
6199–6206, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2015)Gorodetskaya, Kneifel, Maahn, Van Tricht,
Thiery, Schween, Mangold, Crewell, and Van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S., Maahn, M., Van Tricht, K., Thiery, W.,
Schween, J. H., Mangold, A., Crewell, S., and Van Lipzig, N. P. M.: Cloud and
precipitation properties from ground-based remote-sensing instruments in East
Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 9, 285–304,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-285-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-285-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Grazioli et al.(2017a)Grazioli, Genthon, Boudevillain,
Duran-Alarcon, Del Guasta, Jean-Baptiste, and
Berne</label><mixed-citation>Grazioli, J., Genthon, C., Boudevillain, B., Duran-Alarcon, C., Del Guasta,
M., Madeleine, J.-B., and Berne, A.: Measurements of precipitation in Dumont
d'Urville, Adélie Land, East Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 11, 1797–1811,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1797-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-11-1797-2017</ext-link>, 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Grazioli et~al.(2017b)Grazioli, Madeleine, Gall{\'{e}}e,
Forbes, Genthon, Krinner, and Berne}}?><label>Grazioli et al.(2017b)Grazioli, Madeleine, Gallée,
Forbes, Genthon, Krinner, and Berne</label><mixed-citation>
Grazioli, J., Madeleine, J.-B., Gallée, H., Forbes, R. M., Genthon, C.,
Krinner, G., and Berne, A.: Katabatic winds diminish precipitation
contribution to the Antarctic ice mass balance, P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 10858–10863, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Haran et al.(2005)Haran, Bohlander, Scambos, Painter, and
Fahnestock</label><mixed-citation>Haran, T., Bohlander, J., Scambos, T., Painter, T., and Fahnestock, M.: MODIS
Mosaic of Antarctica 2003–2004 (MOA2004) Image Map, Digital media, National
Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO, USA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7265/N5ZK5DM5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7265/N5ZK5DM5</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Kulie and Bennartz(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Kulie, M. S. and Bennartz, R.: Utilizing spaceborne radars to retrieve dry
snowfall, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 48, 2564–2580,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Liu et al.(2008)Liu, Zipser, Cecil, Nesbitt, and
Sherwood</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, C., Zipser, E. J., Cecil, D. J., Nesbitt, S. W., and Sherwood, S.: A cloud
and precipitation feature database from nine years of TRMM observations,
J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 47, 2712–2728, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Maahn and Kollias(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Maahn, M. and Kollias, P.: Improved Micro Rain Radar snow measurements using
Doppler spectra post-processing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2661–2673,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2661-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-2661-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Maahn et al.(2014)Maahn, Burgard, Crewell, Gorodetskaya, Kneifel,
Lhermitte, Van Tricht, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Maahn, M., Burgard, C., Crewell, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S.,
Lhermitte, S., Van Tricht, K., and van Lipzig, N. P.: How does the spaceborne
radar blind zone affect derived surface snowfall statistics in polar
regions?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 13–604, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Palerme et al.(2014)Palerme, Kay, Genthon, L'Ecuyer, Wood, and
Claud</label><mixed-citation>Palerme, C., Kay, J. E., Genthon, C., L'Ecuyer, T., Wood, N. B., and Claud,
C.: How much snow falls on the Antarctic ice sheet?, The Cryosphere, 8,
1577–1587, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1577-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-1577-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page954?><ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Palerme et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Palerme, C., Genthon, C., Claud, C., Kay, J. E., Wood, N. B., and L'Ecuyer,
T.: Evaluation of current and projected Antarctic precipitation in CMIP5
models, Clim. Dynam., 48, 225–239, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Palerme et al.(2019)Palerme, Claud, Wood, L'Ecuyer, and
Genthon</label><mixed-citation>Palerme, C., Claud, C., Wood, N., L'Ecuyer, T., and Genthon, C.: How does
ground clutter affect CloudSat snowfall retrievals over ice sheets?, IEEE
Geosci. Remote, 16, 342–346, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2018.2875007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/LGRS.2018.2875007</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Protat et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Protat, A., Bouniol, D., Delanoë, J., May, P. T., Plana-Fattori, A.,
Hasson,
A., O'Connor, E., Görsdorf, U., and Heymsfield, A. J.: Assessment of
cloudsat reflectivity measurements and ice cloud properties using
ground-based and airborne cloud radar observations, Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 26, 1717–1741, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Souverijns et al.(2017)Souverijns, Gossart, Lhermitte, Gorodetskaya,
Kneifel, Maahn, Bliven, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Lhermitte, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S.,
Maahn, M., Bliven, F. L., and van Lipzig, N.: Estimating radar
reflectivity-Snowfall rate relationships and their uncertainties over
Antarctica by combining disdrometer and radar observations, Atmos.
Res., 196, 211–223, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Souverijns et al.(2018a)Souverijns, Gossart,
Gorodetskaya, Lhermitte, Mangold, Laffineur, Delcloo, and van
Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Lhermitte, S., Mangold, A.,
Laffineur, Q., Delcloo, A., and van Lipzig, N. P. M.: How does the ice sheet
surface mass balance relate to snowfall? Insights from a ground-based
precipitation radar in East Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 12, 1987–2003,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1987-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-12-1987-2018</ext-link>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Souverijns et al.(2018b)Souverijns, Gossart, Lhermitte,
Gorodetskaya, Grazioli, Berne, Duran-Alarcon, Boudevillain, Genthon,
Scarchilli, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Lhermitte, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Grazioli,
J., Berne, A., Duran-Alarcon, C., Boudevillain, B., Genthon, C., Scarchilli,
C., and van Lipzig, N. P. M.: Evaluation of the CloudSat surface snowfall
product over Antarctica using ground-based precipitation radars, The
Cryosphere, 12, 3775–3789, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3775-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-12-3775-2018</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Stephens and Ellis(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Stephens, G. L. and Ellis, T. D.: Controls of global-mean precipitation
increases in global warming GCM experiments, J. Climate, 21,
6141–6155, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Wood(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, N. B.: Estimation of snow microphysical properties with application to
millimeter-wavelength radar retrievals for snowfall rate, PhD thesis,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Evaluation of CloudSat snowfall rate profiles by a comparison with in situ micro-rain radar observations in East Antarctica</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The Antarctic continent is a vast desert and is the coldest and the most
unknown area on Earth. It contains the Antarctic ice sheet, the largest
continental water reservoir on Earth that could be affected by the current
global warming, leading to sea level rise. The only significant supply of ice
is through precipitation, which can be observed from the surface and from
space. Remote-sensing observations of the coastal regions and the inner
continent using CloudSat radar give an estimated rate of snowfall but with
uncertainties twice as large as each single measured value, whereas climate
models give a range from half to twice the space–time-averaged observations.
The aim of this study is the evaluation of the vertical precipitation rate
profiles of CloudSat radar by comparison with two surface-based micro-rain
radars (MRRs), located at the coastal French Dumont d'Urville station and at
the Belgian Princess Elisabeth station located in the Dronning Maud Land
escarpment zone. This in turn leads to a better understanding and
reassessment of CloudSat uncertainties. We compared a total of four
precipitation events, two per station, when CloudSat overpassed within 10&thinsp;km
of the station and we compared these two different datasets at each vertical
level. The correlation between both datasets is near-perfect, even though
climatic and geographic conditions are different for the two stations. Using
different CloudSat and MRR vertical levels, we obtain 10&thinsp;km space-scale and
short-timescale (a few seconds) CloudSat uncertainties from −13&thinsp;% up to
+22&thinsp;%. This confirms the robustness of the CloudSat retrievals of snowfall
over Antarctica above the blind zone and justifies further analyses of this
dataset.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Arthern et al.(2006)Arthern, Winebrenner, and
Vaughan</label><mixed-citation>
Arthern, R. J., Winebrenner, D. P., and Vaughan, D. G.: Antarctic snow
accumulation mapped using polarization of 4.3-cm wavelength microwave
emission, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D06107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005667" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005667</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Berne et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Berne, A., Grazioli, J., and Genthon, C.: Snowfall rate estimates derived
from a micro rain radar (MRR) at the Dumont d'Urville station, Adelie Land,
East Antarctica, link to netCDF file, PANGAEA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.882565" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.882565</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Boening et al.(2012)Boening, Lebsock, Landerer, and
Stephens</label><mixed-citation>
Boening, C., Lebsock, M., Landerer, F., and Stephens, G.: Snowfall-driven mass
change on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21501, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053316" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053316</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Bromwich(1988)</label><mixed-citation>
Bromwich, D. H.: Snowfall in high southern latitudes, Rev. Geophys.,
26, 149–168, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Chen et al.(2016)Chen, Hong, Kulie, Behrangi, Stepanian, Cao, You,
Zhang, Hu, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, S., Hong, Y., Kulie, M., Behrangi, A., Stepanian, P. M., Cao, Q., You,
Y., Zhang, J., Hu, J., and Zhang, X.: Comparison of snowfall estimates from
the NASA CloudSat cloud profiling radar and NOAA/NSSL multi-radar
multi-sensor system, J. Hydrol., 541, 862–872, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Durán-Alarcón et al.(2019)Durán-Alarcón,
Boudevillain, Grazioli, Souverijns, Van Lipzig, Gorodetskaya, and
Berne</label><mixed-citation>
Durán-Alarcón, C., Boudevillain, B., Genthon, C., Grazioli, J.,
Souverijns, N., van Lipzig, N. P. M., Gorodetskaya, I. V., and Berne, A.: The
vertical structure of precipitation at two stations in East Antarctica
derived from micro rain radars, The Cryosphere, 13, 247–264,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-247-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-247-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Eisen et al.(2008)Eisen, Frezzotti, Genthon, Isaksson, Magand,
van den Broeke, Dixon, Ekaykin, Holmlund, Kameda et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Eisen, O., Frezzotti, M., Genthon, C., Isaksson, E., Magand, O., van den
Broeke, M. R., Dixon, D. A., Ekaykin, A., Holmlund, P., Kameda, T.,
Karlöf, L., Kaspari, S., Lipenkov, V. Y., Oerter, H., Takahashi, S., and
Vaughan, D. G.:
Ground-based measurements of spatial and temporal variability of snow
accumulation in East Antarctica, Rev. Geophys., 46, RG2001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006RG000218" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006RG000218</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Fujita and Abe(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Fujita, K. and Abe, O.: Stable isotopes in daily precipitation at Dome Fuji,
East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18503, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026936" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026936</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Genthon et al.(2016)Genthon, Six, Scarchilli, Ciardini, and
Frezzotti</label><mixed-citation>
Genthon, C., Six, D., Scarchilli, C., Ciardini, V., and Frezzotti, M.:
Meteorological and snow accumulation gradients across Dome C, East Antarctic
plateau, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 455–466, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2013)Gorodetskaya, Van Lipzig, Van den Broeke,
Mangold, Boot, and Reijmer</label><mixed-citation>
Gorodetskaya, I. V., Van Lipzig, N., Van den Broeke, M., Mangold, A., Boot,
W.,
and Reijmer, C.: Meteorological regimes and accumulation patterns at
Utsteinen, Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica: Analysis of two contrasting
years, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1700–1715, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2014)Gorodetskaya, Tsukernik, Claes, Ralph, Neff,
and Van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Gorodetskaya, I. V., Tsukernik, M., Claes, K., Ralph, M. F., Neff, W. D., and
Van Lipzig, N. P.: The role of atmospheric rivers in anomalous snow
accumulation in East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
6199–6206, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Gorodetskaya et al.(2015)Gorodetskaya, Kneifel, Maahn, Van Tricht,
Thiery, Schween, Mangold, Crewell, and Van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S., Maahn, M., Van Tricht, K., Thiery, W.,
Schween, J. H., Mangold, A., Crewell, S., and Van Lipzig, N. P. M.: Cloud and
precipitation properties from ground-based remote-sensing instruments in East
Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 9, 285–304,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-285-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-285-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Grazioli et al.(2017a)Grazioli, Genthon, Boudevillain,
Duran-Alarcon, Del Guasta, Jean-Baptiste, and
Berne</label><mixed-citation>
Grazioli, J., Genthon, C., Boudevillain, B., Duran-Alarcon, C., Del Guasta,
M., Madeleine, J.-B., and Berne, A.: Measurements of precipitation in Dumont
d'Urville, Adélie Land, East Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 11, 1797–1811,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1797-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1797-2017</a>, 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Grazioli et al.(2017b)Grazioli, Madeleine, Gallée,
Forbes, Genthon, Krinner, and Berne</label><mixed-citation>
Grazioli, J., Madeleine, J.-B., Gallée, H., Forbes, R. M., Genthon, C.,
Krinner, G., and Berne, A.: Katabatic winds diminish precipitation
contribution to the Antarctic ice mass balance, P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 10858–10863, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Haran et al.(2005)Haran, Bohlander, Scambos, Painter, and
Fahnestock</label><mixed-citation>
Haran, T., Bohlander, J., Scambos, T., Painter, T., and Fahnestock, M.: MODIS
Mosaic of Antarctica 2003–2004 (MOA2004) Image Map, Digital media, National
Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO, USA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.7265/N5ZK5DM5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.7265/N5ZK5DM5</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Kulie and Bennartz(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Kulie, M. S. and Bennartz, R.: Utilizing spaceborne radars to retrieve dry
snowfall, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 48, 2564–2580,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Liu et al.(2008)Liu, Zipser, Cecil, Nesbitt, and
Sherwood</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, C., Zipser, E. J., Cecil, D. J., Nesbitt, S. W., and Sherwood, S.: A cloud
and precipitation feature database from nine years of TRMM observations,
J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 47, 2712–2728, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Maahn and Kollias(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Maahn, M. and Kollias, P.: Improved Micro Rain Radar snow measurements using
Doppler spectra post-processing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2661–2673,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2661-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2661-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Maahn et al.(2014)Maahn, Burgard, Crewell, Gorodetskaya, Kneifel,
Lhermitte, Van Tricht, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Maahn, M., Burgard, C., Crewell, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S.,
Lhermitte, S., Van Tricht, K., and van Lipzig, N. P.: How does the spaceborne
radar blind zone affect derived surface snowfall statistics in polar
regions?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 13–604, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Palerme et al.(2014)Palerme, Kay, Genthon, L'Ecuyer, Wood, and
Claud</label><mixed-citation>
Palerme, C., Kay, J. E., Genthon, C., L'Ecuyer, T., Wood, N. B., and Claud,
C.: How much snow falls on the Antarctic ice sheet?, The Cryosphere, 8,
1577–1587, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1577-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1577-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Palerme et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Palerme, C., Genthon, C., Claud, C., Kay, J. E., Wood, N. B., and L'Ecuyer,
T.: Evaluation of current and projected Antarctic precipitation in CMIP5
models, Clim. Dynam., 48, 225–239, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Palerme et al.(2019)Palerme, Claud, Wood, L'Ecuyer, and
Genthon</label><mixed-citation>
Palerme, C., Claud, C., Wood, N., L'Ecuyer, T., and Genthon, C.: How does
ground clutter affect CloudSat snowfall retrievals over ice sheets?, IEEE
Geosci. Remote, 16, 342–346, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2018.2875007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2018.2875007</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Protat et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Protat, A., Bouniol, D., Delanoë, J., May, P. T., Plana-Fattori, A.,
Hasson,
A., O'Connor, E., Görsdorf, U., and Heymsfield, A. J.: Assessment of
cloudsat reflectivity measurements and ice cloud properties using
ground-based and airborne cloud radar observations, Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 26, 1717–1741, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Souverijns et al.(2017)Souverijns, Gossart, Lhermitte, Gorodetskaya,
Kneifel, Maahn, Bliven, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Lhermitte, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Kneifel, S.,
Maahn, M., Bliven, F. L., and van Lipzig, N.: Estimating radar
reflectivity-Snowfall rate relationships and their uncertainties over
Antarctica by combining disdrometer and radar observations, Atmos.
Res., 196, 211–223, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Souverijns et al.(2018a)Souverijns, Gossart,
Gorodetskaya, Lhermitte, Mangold, Laffineur, Delcloo, and van
Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Lhermitte, S., Mangold, A.,
Laffineur, Q., Delcloo, A., and van Lipzig, N. P. M.: How does the ice sheet
surface mass balance relate to snowfall? Insights from a ground-based
precipitation radar in East Antarctica, The Cryosphere, 12, 1987–2003,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1987-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1987-2018</a>, 2018a.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Souverijns et al.(2018b)Souverijns, Gossart, Lhermitte,
Gorodetskaya, Grazioli, Berne, Duran-Alarcon, Boudevillain, Genthon,
Scarchilli, and van Lipzig</label><mixed-citation>
Souverijns, N., Gossart, A., Lhermitte, S., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Grazioli,
J., Berne, A., Duran-Alarcon, C., Boudevillain, B., Genthon, C., Scarchilli,
C., and van Lipzig, N. P. M.: Evaluation of the CloudSat surface snowfall
product over Antarctica using ground-based precipitation radars, The
Cryosphere, 12, 3775–3789, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3775-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3775-2018</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Stephens and Ellis(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Stephens, G. L. and Ellis, T. D.: Controls of global-mean precipitation
increases in global warming GCM experiments, J. Climate, 21,
6141–6155, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Wood(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, N. B.: Estimation of snow microphysical properties with application to
millimeter-wavelength radar retrievals for snowfall rate, PhD thesis,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
