the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Aug 2023
Water Vapor Exchange between Atmospheric Boundary Layer and Free Troposphere over Eastern China: Seasonal Characteristics and ENSO Anomaly
Abstract. This study develops a quantitative climatology of water vapor exchange between the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and free troposphere (FT) over Eastern China. The exchange flux is estimated for January, April, July, and October over 7 years (2011 and 2014–2019) based on a water vapor budget equation using simulated meteorological data. The spatial pattern of the ABL-FT water vapor exchange flux is closely related to the topographic distribution. The seasonal variation shows that the water vapor exchange in the northern region is downward in January and October with the flux being 37 %–72 % of the surface evaporation to maintain the ABL moisture, while it is weak upward in April and July; the southern region presents persistently water vapor output from the ABL to the FT, with the ratio of exchange flux to surface evaporation increasing from 10 % in January and October to 60 %–80 % in April and July. Three physical processes determine the total water vapor exchange, among which the ABL diurnal variation drives large magnitude exchange flux within the one-day cycle, but for the net monthly mean flux, the vertical motion at the ABL top is the main contributor. The anomaly of water vapor exchange in ENSO years illustrates triple antiphase distribution: strengthening in the middle area and weakening in the north and south zones of Eastern China in La Niña year, and vice versa in El Niño year. It agrees with the spatial pattern of anomalous precipitation, implying the crucial role of ABL-FT water vapor exchange in atmospheric water cycle.
-
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
(2950 KB)
-
Supplement
(1308 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2950 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1308 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1639', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2023
This is an interesting and well written paper, discussing water vapour exchange between the boundary layer and free troposphere over China, using budgeting techniques.
My main concern is whether the results and conclusions presented are significant enough and of sufficient general interest. In a revised version of the manuscript I would encourage the authors to really focus on ensuring the abstract and conclusions highlight what they feel are the key new findings presented by their work, and what the general interest of these are (i.e. a wider ranging interest than just local meteorology over China). This may require further work on some aspects of the paper that were tantalising but lacked depth. For example:
- Sect 3.3 - do the authors have a suggestion why the water vapour exchange changes in the way it does due to ENSO - what is the mechanism for this relationship? i.e. what components and inputs of the water budget are altered, and why? I think this is one of the key general interest parts of the paper, but it requires more in-depth discussion than merely presenting correlations, given you've gone to the effort of devising the budgeting tools that allow you to answer the questions of why the correlations exist.
- L507 - I accept that a complete analysis here is beyond the scope of this study, but I think the paper would be strengthened by at least providing some discussion of the mechanisms responsible for the water vapour transport results presented.
Minor comments:
- L60 - should be cancelling (not canceling)
- L80 - Boutle et al (2011, QJ, doi:10.1002/qj.783) is possibly a better reference here
- L125 - would be better to refer to "grid length" than resolution, since that is what is quoted (the resolution is ~5 times the grid-length!)
- L225 - "variables were extracted from the vertical level closest to the top of the ABL" - why not interpolate the variables to the ABL height, using the levels either side. I'm slightly worried that choosing the closest level may give significant differences if that level is above or below the BL top, i.e. are you always choosing free tropospheric values or always choosing ABL values, or a random mix of the two? And does this matter?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1639-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xipeng Jin, 25 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1639', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Sep 2023
The manuscript discusses the water vapor exchange between the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and free troposphere (FT). The water vapor exchange between the ABL and FT is an important phenomenon related to e.g. precipitation, clouds, tropical cyclone formation etc. Therefore, it is quite important to improve the understanding of the water vapor exchange. The authors are using WRF simulations for seven years to study the phenomena. They model and the parameterization schemes used are well evaluated against meteorological observations. The manuscript is very well written and structured and, in my opinion, it is quite easy for the reader to follow. The structure and results are already quite good, and the methods used are well evaluated, the results are discussed and compared well to existing literature and also the uncertainties of the results are discussed well. Therefore, I have only minor suggestions before I can suggest the publishing of the paper. Her are my detailed comments:
- Figure 2: Do you have an explanation why the model seems to be underestimating the ABLH in winter months, but overestimating during the summer months?
- Figure 2 (+others): It would be good for the reader to point out in the caption, that the winter panel and the summer panels have different scales in y-axes.
- P8 L239: Please give proper citation for the ECMWF data used in the study.
- P9 L273: Do you mean Sect 3.2 in stead of Sect. 3b?
- Figure 8: Is the map showing only statistically significant grids? If not what percentage of the grids were significant? Were there any spatial variation of the significancy?
- P16 L458–459: Which section do you refer to with Sect. 3a?
- Summary: Even if it is good to have some sort of summary of the results, I would prefer (also or instead of summary) a short conclusions section that would also point out the most important findings of this study. In addition, it should be also clearly pointed out in the abstract.
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1639-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xipeng Jin, 25 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1639', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2023
This is an interesting and well written paper, discussing water vapour exchange between the boundary layer and free troposphere over China, using budgeting techniques.
My main concern is whether the results and conclusions presented are significant enough and of sufficient general interest. In a revised version of the manuscript I would encourage the authors to really focus on ensuring the abstract and conclusions highlight what they feel are the key new findings presented by their work, and what the general interest of these are (i.e. a wider ranging interest than just local meteorology over China). This may require further work on some aspects of the paper that were tantalising but lacked depth. For example:
- Sect 3.3 - do the authors have a suggestion why the water vapour exchange changes in the way it does due to ENSO - what is the mechanism for this relationship? i.e. what components and inputs of the water budget are altered, and why? I think this is one of the key general interest parts of the paper, but it requires more in-depth discussion than merely presenting correlations, given you've gone to the effort of devising the budgeting tools that allow you to answer the questions of why the correlations exist.
- L507 - I accept that a complete analysis here is beyond the scope of this study, but I think the paper would be strengthened by at least providing some discussion of the mechanisms responsible for the water vapour transport results presented.
Minor comments:
- L60 - should be cancelling (not canceling)
- L80 - Boutle et al (2011, QJ, doi:10.1002/qj.783) is possibly a better reference here
- L125 - would be better to refer to "grid length" than resolution, since that is what is quoted (the resolution is ~5 times the grid-length!)
- L225 - "variables were extracted from the vertical level closest to the top of the ABL" - why not interpolate the variables to the ABL height, using the levels either side. I'm slightly worried that choosing the closest level may give significant differences if that level is above or below the BL top, i.e. are you always choosing free tropospheric values or always choosing ABL values, or a random mix of the two? And does this matter?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1639-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xipeng Jin, 25 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1639', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Sep 2023
The manuscript discusses the water vapor exchange between the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and free troposphere (FT). The water vapor exchange between the ABL and FT is an important phenomenon related to e.g. precipitation, clouds, tropical cyclone formation etc. Therefore, it is quite important to improve the understanding of the water vapor exchange. The authors are using WRF simulations for seven years to study the phenomena. They model and the parameterization schemes used are well evaluated against meteorological observations. The manuscript is very well written and structured and, in my opinion, it is quite easy for the reader to follow. The structure and results are already quite good, and the methods used are well evaluated, the results are discussed and compared well to existing literature and also the uncertainties of the results are discussed well. Therefore, I have only minor suggestions before I can suggest the publishing of the paper. Her are my detailed comments:
- Figure 2: Do you have an explanation why the model seems to be underestimating the ABLH in winter months, but overestimating during the summer months?
- Figure 2 (+others): It would be good for the reader to point out in the caption, that the winter panel and the summer panels have different scales in y-axes.
- P8 L239: Please give proper citation for the ECMWF data used in the study.
- P9 L273: Do you mean Sect 3.2 in stead of Sect. 3b?
- Figure 8: Is the map showing only statistically significant grids? If not what percentage of the grids were significant? Were there any spatial variation of the significancy?
- P16 L458–459: Which section do you refer to with Sect. 3a?
- Summary: Even if it is good to have some sort of summary of the results, I would prefer (also or instead of summary) a short conclusions section that would also point out the most important findings of this study. In addition, it should be also clearly pointed out in the abstract.
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1639-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xipeng Jin, 25 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 222 | 78 | 21 | 321 | 31 | 7 | 10 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 78
- XML: 21
- Total: 321
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Xipeng Jin
Xuhui Cai
Xuesong Wang
Qianqian Huang
Yu Song
Ling Kang
Hongsheng Zhang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2950 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1308 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper