• Gabella, M., , S. Pavone, , and G. Perona. 2001. Errors in the estimate of the fractal correlation dimension of raindrop spatial distribution. J. Appl. Meteor 40:664668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jameson, A. R., and A. B. Kostinski. 1998. Fluctuation properties of precipitation. Part II: Reconsideration of the meaning and measurement of raindrop size distributions. J. Atmos. Sci 55:283294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jameson, A. R., and A. B. Kostinski. 2001. Comments on “Errors in the estimate of the fractal correlation dimension of raindrop spatial distribution.”. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 2098.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lovejoy, S., and D. Schertzer. 1990. Fractals, raindrops, and resolution dependence of rain measurements. J. Appl. Meteor 29:11671170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 3 3 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0

Reply

View More View Less
  • 1 Dipartimento di Elettronica, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
© Get Permissions
Full access

Corresponding author address: Marco Gabella, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy. gabella@polito.it

Corresponding author address: Marco Gabella, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy. gabella@polito.it

In reply to the comment by Jameson and Kostinski (2001), please excuse us for not having seen the appendix of Jameson and Kostinski (1998, hereinafter JK). It is not easy to read everything in a world that is increasingly rich with papers—to which we both have added a small contribution.

Nevertheless, we would like to point out that the conclusions in JK are not the same as in our paper (Gabella et al. 2001, hereinafter GPP). In their paper, JK concluded that the “departure from Poisson in the retrieved correlation dimension may also simply be the result of an incomplete, finite sample drawn from a Poisson distribution” whereas GPP found that “the retrieved correlation dimension differs from the true value (D = 2) because of systematic and random errors. These errors can be ascribed not only to the finite number of raindrops but most of all to edge effects.”

Both Lovejoy and Schertzer (1990, hereinafter LS) and JK have neglected “edge effects” by using a maximum radius of the circle equal to one-third of the blotting paper. If they had avoided edge effects (e.g., by introducing a guard area), they would have found a larger value of the correlation dimension. The departure from Poisson found by JK in their single realization is not only the result of an incomplete, finite sample; it is also affected by their method of computing the correlation dimension: they let the circles end outside the blotting paper in an area without drops.

From the available data we cannot say anything conclusive about the fractal dimension of real rain, but what we can say is that edge effects, such as those present in JK and LS, tend to reduce the retrieved fractal dimension.

REFERENCES

  • Gabella, M., , S. Pavone, , and G. Perona. 2001. Errors in the estimate of the fractal correlation dimension of raindrop spatial distribution. J. Appl. Meteor 40:664668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jameson, A. R., and A. B. Kostinski. 1998. Fluctuation properties of precipitation. Part II: Reconsideration of the meaning and measurement of raindrop size distributions. J. Atmos. Sci 55:283294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jameson, A. R., and A. B. Kostinski. 2001. Comments on “Errors in the estimate of the fractal correlation dimension of raindrop spatial distribution.”. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 2098.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lovejoy, S., and D. Schertzer. 1990. Fractals, raindrops, and resolution dependence of rain measurements. J. Appl. Meteor 29:11671170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Save