A Simple and Realistic Aerosol Emission Approach for use in the Thompson-Eidhammer microphysics scheme in the NOAA UFS Weather Model (version GSL global-24Feb2022)

Li, Haiqin; Grell, Georg; Ahmadov, Ravan; Zhang, Li; Sun, Shan; Schnell, Jordan; Wang, Ning

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271

Preprints

17 Aug 2023

| 17 Aug 2023

A Simple and Realistic Aerosol Emission Approach for use in the Thompson-Eidhammer microphysics scheme in the NOAA UFS Weather Model (version GSL global-24Feb2022)

Haiqin Li, Georg Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang

Abstract. A physics suite under development at NOAA’s Global System Laboratory (GSL) includes the aerosol-aware double moment Thompson-Eidhammer microphysics scheme (TH-E MP). This microphysics scheme uses two aerosol variables (water friendly (WFA) and ice friendly (IFA) aerosol number concentrations) to include interaction with some of the physical processes. In the original implementation, WFA and IFA depend on emissions derived from climatologies. In our approach, using the Common Community Physics Package (CCPP), we embedded sea-salt, dust, and biomass burning emission modules as well as anthropogenic aerosol emissions into the Unified Forecast System (UFS) to provide realistic aerosol emissions for these two variables. This represents a very simple approach with no additional tracer variables and therefore very limited additional computing cost. We then evaluate a comparison of simulations using the original TH-E MP approach, which derives the two aerosol variables using empirical emission formulas from climatologies (CTL) and simulations that use the online emissions (EXP). Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) is derived from the 2 variables and appears quite realistic in the runs with online emissions when compared to analyzed fields. We find less resolved precipitation over Europe and North America from the EXP run, which represents an improvement compared to observations. Also interesting are moderately increased aerosol concentrations over Southern Ocean from the EXP run invigorating the development of cloud water and enhances the resolved precipitation in those areas. This study shows that a more realistic representation of aerosol emission may be useful when using double moment microphysics schemes.

Received: 12 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 17 Aug 2023

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 14463 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (14463 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

25 Jan 2024

A simple and realistic aerosol emission approach for use in the Thompson–Eidhammer microphysics scheme in the NOAA UFS Weather Model (version GSL global-24Feb2022)

Haiqin Li, Georg A. Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang

Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 607–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024, 2024

Short summary

Haiqin Li, Georg Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1271', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Oct 2023

This paper introduces a change to allow the microphysics and radiation in the

UFS Weather Model to interact with cloud and ice nuclei from real-time emission

sources rather than the climatology currently used with the Thompson scheme.

The work represents a step forwards in allowing basic aerosol-physics interactions

without the use of a full chemistry model for medium-range global applications.

A series of cases are tested and compared with the climatology option and

verifying data from various sources. The results show that this is a promising

direction in reducing some biases and adding more realism to aerosol effects

globally.
The paper is well presented and worth publication. I only have some minor

comments to address.
Minor Points
1. line 105. State the units of WFA and IFA. Equations are hard to interpret

without units.
2. L114-116. 1^-9 is a typo.
3. L123. "is a scale-aware"
4. L127. "boulder"
5. L127. Does MYNN PBL mix WFA and IFA?
6. L131. "surface climatological(?) number concentration"
7. Figure 1. Vertically integrated?
8. L169. Is AOD interactive with radiation in the model?
9. L186-189. "aeras" typo.
10. L233. Not sure how to relate 10^9 profiles with 10^13 integrated values?
11. L246. Invigoration related to freezing level in cloud?
12. L251. Do non-hygroscopic aerosols include black carbon which interacts with

radiation but is not an ice nucleus?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Haiqin Li, 05 Dec 2023
  Referee #1
  We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We revised the manuscript following the reviewer’s suggestions.
  This paper introduces a change to allow the microphysics and radiation in the UFS Weather Model to interact with cloud and ice nuclei from real-time emission sources rather than the climatology currently used with the Thompson scheme. The work represents a step forwards in allowing basic aerosol-physics interactions without the use of a full chemistry model for medium-range global applications. A series of cases are tested and compared with the climatology option and verifying data from various sources. The results show that this is a promising direction in reducing some biases and adding more realism to aerosol effects globally. The paper is well presented and worth publication. I only have some minor comments to address.
  Minor Points
  line 105. State the units of WFA and IFA. Equations are hard to interpret without units.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the units of WFA and IFA have been added in the revised manuscript “The tendencies of WFA (kg^-1) and IFA (kg^-1)”.
  
  L114-116. 1^-9 is a typo.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “10^-9”.
  
  L123. "is a scale-aware"
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “is scale-aware”.
  
  L127. "boulder"
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “boundary” in the revised manuscript.
  
  L127. Does MYNN PBL mix WFA and IFA?
  
  → Yes, it has been clarified in the revised manuscript “to represent PBL mixing (including WFA and IFA)”.
  
  L131. "surface climatological(?) number concentration"
  
  → Yes, it has been clarified as “surface climatological number concentrations”.
  
  Figure 1. Vertically integrated?
  
  → Yes, it is clarified as “vertically integrated” for the caption of Figure 1 in the revised manuscript.
  
  L169. Is AOD interactive with radiation in the model?
  
  → We focused on the aerosol indirect feedback to microphysics, and the AOD derived from WFA and IFA is not interactive with radiation in the model configuration used in this study. We clarified this in the revised manuscript as “Overall, the AOD derived from WFA and IFA is in reasonable agreement with analysis, suggesting it may be worth investigating the direct radiation impact in comparison to using climatologies in the future studies.”.
  
  L186-189. "aeras" typo.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected as “areas”.
  
  L233. Not sure how to relate 10^9 profiles with 10^13 integrated values?
  
  → The profiles of WFA in Figure 10 are in unit of number per kg, and the vertical integral of WFA (number per m^2 ) is by the sum of WFA*delp/g in each vertical layer. delp is the layer pressure in the unit of Pa, and g is gravitational acceleration. Thus, we get the 10^13 vertically integrated values in Figure 1.
  
  L246. Invigoration related to freezing level in cloud?
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer, we added the following text in the revised manuscript “Increased cloud water may also lead to increased freezing and latent heating above the freezing level, further invigorating the clouds”.
  
  L251. Do non-hygroscopic aerosols include black carbon which interacts with radiation but is not an ice nucleus?
  
  → Non-hygroscopic aerosol (ice-friendly aerosol) is primarily considered to be dust (Thompson and Eidhammer 2014).
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1271', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Nov 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1271/egusphere-2023-1271-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Haiqin Li, 05 Dec 2023
  Referee # 2
  We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We’ve revised the manuscript following the reviewer’s suggestions.
  The author develops a simple and realistic aerosol emission approach. Using the CommonCommunity Physics Package (CCPP), they embedded sea-salt, dust, and biomass burning emission modules as well as anthropogenic aerosol emissions into the Unified Forecast System(UFS) to provide realistic aerosol emissions for these two variables. This approach provides realistic aerosol emissions without the need for additional tracer variables, resulting in minimal additional computing cost.
  The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The new aerosol emission approach demonstrates good realism in the runs with online emissions, as evidenced by comparisons with analyzed fields for the Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD). Additionally, the cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation in the runs also exhibit realistic representations. This simple and realistic aerosol emission approach is highly suitable for operational Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) due to its affordability.
  The reviewer recommends a minor revision for the manuscript. Below are the main comments of the reviewer.
  Specific comments:
  Please ensure consistency in the citation format of the references mentioned in the paper. For example, Line 36: "Conrick et al. 2021" should be "Conrick et al. (2021)"; Line 44: "Zhao et al. 2021" should be "Zhao et al. (2021)"; Line 49: "Mulcahy et al. 2014" should be "Mulcahy et al. (2014)" .
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. The references have been reformatted in the revised manuscript.
  
  In the main text, the full name should be provided for the first occurrence of an abbreviation. Please check this. For example, "UFS" should be expanded to its full name at Line 61, rather than at Line 69.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. The abbreviations have been rearranged in the revised manuscript.
  
  Will the UFS Weather Model (https://github.com/NOAAGSL/ufs-weather-model/releases/tag/ global-24Feb2022) in this study be made publicly available? Currently, it seems that the provided link is not accessible.
  
  → I am sorry that https://github.com/NOAA-GSL/ufs-weather-model/releases/tag/global-24Feb2022 under the github organization of NOAA-GSL is not accessible publicly. The exact version of the UFS Weather Model used to produce the results used in this paper is available on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7951581.
  
  Please provide a detailed explanation of the factwra_ss、factwra_oc、factifa in the formula section.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, a detailed explanation has been added in the revised manuscript that “The factwfa_ss, factwfa_oc, and factifa are the tuning factors with the diameters of sea salt (wfa_diameter_ss), organic carbon (factwfa_oc) and dust (factifa), respectively”.
  
  The author should provide an accurate description of the experimental results. e.g., in Figure 3, the EXP experiment overestimated AOD in central Africa while underestimating it in South Asia.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the description of AOD in the revised manuscript that “The AOD from the EXP run is somewhat overestimated over Eastern Europe, the Eastern part of the US, and central Africa, with some underestimation over South Asia (Table 1)”.
  
  To provide a more intuitive comparison between CTL and EXP, it would be helpful to include the EXP minus CERES results in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Additionally, in Figure 5b, the title "New-CTL" should be changed to "EXP-CTL" to maintain consistency with the other figures. Similarly, in Figure 10a, "NEW" should be changed to "EXP" for consistency.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the EXP minus CERES results are added in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The “NEW” has also been corrected to “EXP” for consistency in Figure 5b and Figure 10a.
  
  Just like in Figures 5 and 6, it would be beneficial to include the results of EXP minus Obs inFigure 9. Comparing CTL minus Obs and EXP minus Obs would provide a more comprehensive assessment of the improvement and differences between EXP and CTL.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the EXP minus Obs has been added in Figure 9.
  
  Lines 152-154: Is there any difference in the calculation of the averages for WFA, IFA, AOD, temperature, hydrometeors, cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation, are they all averaged over a 120-hour forecast period? Does "The forecast is integrated for 120 h" mean that the forecast has a time resolution of 120 hours?
  
  → We clarified in the revised manuscript that “The WFA, IFA, AOD, temperature, and hydrometeors are from the instantaneously values at 120 h forecast. The cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation are from the cumulative values over the 120-h forecast period”
  
  Lines 192-194: "The global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations compared to the CTL and EXP runs are 192.5 W m-2 , 194.7 W m-2 and 193.7 W m-2 , respectively" means the global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations, the CTL, the EXP are 192.5 Wm-2 , 194.7 W m-2 and 193.7 W m-2 , respectively? What does "comparison" mean here? In the same way What does "compare" mean in 199-201? Please provide a clear description.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, it has been clarified in the revised manuscript as “ The global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations , the CTL, and the EXP runs are 192.5 W m^-2, 194.7 W m^-2 and 193.7 W m^-2 respectively”.
  
  Line 194 and Line 200, "W m_2" should be "W m-2 ."
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, the "W m_2" has been corrected to " W m^-2" in Line 194 and Line 200 of the revised manuscript.
  
  The validity of the liquid water path (LWP) obtained from the CTL and EXP runs can be assessed by comparing it with other LWP products or by calculating LWP usingERA-Interim/CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) data. Additionally, the results of the CTL and EXP runs for the 120-h averaged high cloud, mid cloud, and low cloud cover fractions can also be compared with satellite products such as CloudSat/CALIPSO.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the LWP from ERA5 and GFS Analysis are added in Figure 7, and the CERES satellite products of high cloud, mid cloud and low cloud cover are added in Figure 4 of the revised manuscript.
  
  Some figures are not very clear, such as Figure 4. It is recommended to replace them with clearer versions for better readability by the readers.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, all the figures are replaced with PDF formats for better readability.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1271', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Oct 2023

This paper introduces a change to allow the microphysics and radiation in the

UFS Weather Model to interact with cloud and ice nuclei from real-time emission

sources rather than the climatology currently used with the Thompson scheme.

The work represents a step forwards in allowing basic aerosol-physics interactions

without the use of a full chemistry model for medium-range global applications.

A series of cases are tested and compared with the climatology option and

verifying data from various sources. The results show that this is a promising

direction in reducing some biases and adding more realism to aerosol effects

globally.
The paper is well presented and worth publication. I only have some minor

comments to address.
Minor Points
1. line 105. State the units of WFA and IFA. Equations are hard to interpret

without units.
2. L114-116. 1^-9 is a typo.
3. L123. "is a scale-aware"
4. L127. "boulder"
5. L127. Does MYNN PBL mix WFA and IFA?
6. L131. "surface climatological(?) number concentration"
7. Figure 1. Vertically integrated?
8. L169. Is AOD interactive with radiation in the model?
9. L186-189. "aeras" typo.
10. L233. Not sure how to relate 10^9 profiles with 10^13 integrated values?
11. L246. Invigoration related to freezing level in cloud?
12. L251. Do non-hygroscopic aerosols include black carbon which interacts with

radiation but is not an ice nucleus?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Haiqin Li, 05 Dec 2023
  Referee #1
  We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We revised the manuscript following the reviewer’s suggestions.
  This paper introduces a change to allow the microphysics and radiation in the UFS Weather Model to interact with cloud and ice nuclei from real-time emission sources rather than the climatology currently used with the Thompson scheme. The work represents a step forwards in allowing basic aerosol-physics interactions without the use of a full chemistry model for medium-range global applications. A series of cases are tested and compared with the climatology option and verifying data from various sources. The results show that this is a promising direction in reducing some biases and adding more realism to aerosol effects globally. The paper is well presented and worth publication. I only have some minor comments to address.
  Minor Points
  line 105. State the units of WFA and IFA. Equations are hard to interpret without units.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the units of WFA and IFA have been added in the revised manuscript “The tendencies of WFA (kg^-1) and IFA (kg^-1)”.
  
  L114-116. 1^-9 is a typo.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “10^-9”.
  
  L123. "is a scale-aware"
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “is scale-aware”.
  
  L127. "boulder"
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected to “boundary” in the revised manuscript.
  
  L127. Does MYNN PBL mix WFA and IFA?
  
  → Yes, it has been clarified in the revised manuscript “to represent PBL mixing (including WFA and IFA)”.
  
  L131. "surface climatological(?) number concentration"
  
  → Yes, it has been clarified as “surface climatological number concentrations”.
  
  Figure 1. Vertically integrated?
  
  → Yes, it is clarified as “vertically integrated” for the caption of Figure 1 in the revised manuscript.
  
  L169. Is AOD interactive with radiation in the model?
  
  → We focused on the aerosol indirect feedback to microphysics, and the AOD derived from WFA and IFA is not interactive with radiation in the model configuration used in this study. We clarified this in the revised manuscript as “Overall, the AOD derived from WFA and IFA is in reasonable agreement with analysis, suggesting it may be worth investigating the direct radiation impact in comparison to using climatologies in the future studies.”.
  
  L186-189. "aeras" typo.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, and it has been corrected as “areas”.
  
  L233. Not sure how to relate 10^9 profiles with 10^13 integrated values?
  
  → The profiles of WFA in Figure 10 are in unit of number per kg, and the vertical integral of WFA (number per m^2 ) is by the sum of WFA*delp/g in each vertical layer. delp is the layer pressure in the unit of Pa, and g is gravitational acceleration. Thus, we get the 10^13 vertically integrated values in Figure 1.
  
  L246. Invigoration related to freezing level in cloud?
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer, we added the following text in the revised manuscript “Increased cloud water may also lead to increased freezing and latent heating above the freezing level, further invigorating the clouds”.
  
  L251. Do non-hygroscopic aerosols include black carbon which interacts with radiation but is not an ice nucleus?
  
  → Non-hygroscopic aerosol (ice-friendly aerosol) is primarily considered to be dust (Thompson and Eidhammer 2014).
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1271', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Nov 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1271/egusphere-2023-1271-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Haiqin Li, 05 Dec 2023
  Referee # 2
  We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We’ve revised the manuscript following the reviewer’s suggestions.
  The author develops a simple and realistic aerosol emission approach. Using the CommonCommunity Physics Package (CCPP), they embedded sea-salt, dust, and biomass burning emission modules as well as anthropogenic aerosol emissions into the Unified Forecast System(UFS) to provide realistic aerosol emissions for these two variables. This approach provides realistic aerosol emissions without the need for additional tracer variables, resulting in minimal additional computing cost.
  The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The new aerosol emission approach demonstrates good realism in the runs with online emissions, as evidenced by comparisons with analyzed fields for the Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD). Additionally, the cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation in the runs also exhibit realistic representations. This simple and realistic aerosol emission approach is highly suitable for operational Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) due to its affordability.
  The reviewer recommends a minor revision for the manuscript. Below are the main comments of the reviewer.
  Specific comments:
  Please ensure consistency in the citation format of the references mentioned in the paper. For example, Line 36: "Conrick et al. 2021" should be "Conrick et al. (2021)"; Line 44: "Zhao et al. 2021" should be "Zhao et al. (2021)"; Line 49: "Mulcahy et al. 2014" should be "Mulcahy et al. (2014)" .
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. The references have been reformatted in the revised manuscript.
  
  In the main text, the full name should be provided for the first occurrence of an abbreviation. Please check this. For example, "UFS" should be expanded to its full name at Line 61, rather than at Line 69.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. The abbreviations have been rearranged in the revised manuscript.
  
  Will the UFS Weather Model (https://github.com/NOAAGSL/ufs-weather-model/releases/tag/ global-24Feb2022) in this study be made publicly available? Currently, it seems that the provided link is not accessible.
  
  → I am sorry that https://github.com/NOAA-GSL/ufs-weather-model/releases/tag/global-24Feb2022 under the github organization of NOAA-GSL is not accessible publicly. The exact version of the UFS Weather Model used to produce the results used in this paper is available on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7951581.
  
  Please provide a detailed explanation of the factwra_ss、factwra_oc、factifa in the formula section.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, a detailed explanation has been added in the revised manuscript that “The factwfa_ss, factwfa_oc, and factifa are the tuning factors with the diameters of sea salt (wfa_diameter_ss), organic carbon (factwfa_oc) and dust (factifa), respectively”.
  
  The author should provide an accurate description of the experimental results. e.g., in Figure 3, the EXP experiment overestimated AOD in central Africa while underestimating it in South Asia.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added the description of AOD in the revised manuscript that “The AOD from the EXP run is somewhat overestimated over Eastern Europe, the Eastern part of the US, and central Africa, with some underestimation over South Asia (Table 1)”.
  
  To provide a more intuitive comparison between CTL and EXP, it would be helpful to include the EXP minus CERES results in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Additionally, in Figure 5b, the title "New-CTL" should be changed to "EXP-CTL" to maintain consistency with the other figures. Similarly, in Figure 10a, "NEW" should be changed to "EXP" for consistency.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the EXP minus CERES results are added in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The “NEW” has also been corrected to “EXP” for consistency in Figure 5b and Figure 10a.
  
  Just like in Figures 5 and 6, it would be beneficial to include the results of EXP minus Obs inFigure 9. Comparing CTL minus Obs and EXP minus Obs would provide a more comprehensive assessment of the improvement and differences between EXP and CTL.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the EXP minus Obs has been added in Figure 9.
  
  Lines 152-154: Is there any difference in the calculation of the averages for WFA, IFA, AOD, temperature, hydrometeors, cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation, are they all averaged over a 120-hour forecast period? Does "The forecast is integrated for 120 h" mean that the forecast has a time resolution of 120 hours?
  
  → We clarified in the revised manuscript that “The WFA, IFA, AOD, temperature, and hydrometeors are from the instantaneously values at 120 h forecast. The cloud cover, radiation, and precipitation are from the cumulative values over the 120-h forecast period”
  
  Lines 192-194: "The global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations compared to the CTL and EXP runs are 192.5 W m-2 , 194.7 W m-2 and 193.7 W m-2 , respectively" means the global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations, the CTL, the EXP are 192.5 Wm-2 , 194.7 W m-2 and 193.7 W m-2 , respectively? What does "comparison" mean here? In the same way What does "compare" mean in 199-201? Please provide a clear description.
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, it has been clarified in the revised manuscript as “ The global mean SFCDSW from the averaged CERES observations , the CTL, and the EXP runs are 192.5 W m^-2, 194.7 W m^-2 and 193.7 W m^-2 respectively”.
  
  Line 194 and Line 200, "W m_2" should be "W m-2 ."
  
  → Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out, the "W m_2" has been corrected to " W m^-2" in Line 194 and Line 200 of the revised manuscript.
  
  The validity of the liquid water path (LWP) obtained from the CTL and EXP runs can be assessed by comparing it with other LWP products or by calculating LWP usingERA-Interim/CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) data. Additionally, the results of the CTL and EXP runs for the 120-h averaged high cloud, mid cloud, and low cloud cover fractions can also be compared with satellite products such as CloudSat/CALIPSO.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the LWP from ERA5 and GFS Analysis are added in Figure 7, and the CERES satellite products of high cloud, mid cloud and low cloud cover are added in Figure 4 of the revised manuscript.
  
  Some figures are not very clear, such as Figure 4. It is recommended to replace them with clearer versions for better readability by the readers.
  
  → Following the reviewer’s suggestion, all the figures are replaced with PDF formats for better readability.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1271-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Haiqin Li on behalf of the Authors (10 Dec 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Dec 2023) by David Topping

AR by Haiqin Li on behalf of the Authors (21 Dec 2023)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

25 Jan 2024

A simple and realistic aerosol emission approach for use in the Thompson–Eidhammer microphysics scheme in the NOAA UFS Weather Model (version GSL global-24Feb2022)

Haiqin Li, Georg A. Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang

Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 607–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024, 2024

Short summary

Haiqin Li, Georg Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang

Viewed

Total article views: 257 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
178	61	18	257	11	10

HTML: 178
PDF: 61
XML: 18
Total: 257
BibTeX: 11
EndNote: 10

Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Aug 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2023	76	18	3	97
Sep 2023	22	6	1	29
Oct 2023	31	12	6	49
Nov 2023	4	2	1	7
Dec 2023	29	21	5	55
Jan 2024	16	2	2	20

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Aug 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2023	76	18	3	97
Sep 2023	22	6	1	29
Oct 2023	31	12	6	49
Nov 2023	4	2	1	7
Dec 2023	29	21	5	55
Jan 2024	16	2	2	20

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 239 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 239 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Jan 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (14463 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We developed a simple and realistic method to provide aerosol emissions for aerosol-aware microphysics in numerical weather forecast model. The cloud-radiation differences between the experimental (EXP) and control (CTL) experiments respond to the aerosol differences. The strong positive precipitation biases over North America and Europe from the CTL run are significantly reduced in the EXP run. This study shows that a realistic representation of aerosol emission should be considered.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0