the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Rainfall enhancement downwind of hills due to standing waves on the melting-level and the extreme rainfall of December 2015 in the Lake District of northwest England
Edward Carroll
Abstract. Flow over orography can be investigated through stationary gravity waves, i.e. those whose speed exactly opposes, and therefore cancels, that of the airstream in which they are embedded. They give rise to persistent zones of ascent and descent, which modulate precipitation patterns and contribute to large accumulations, e.g. through the well-known seeder-feeder mechanism. It is shown here that opposite, stationary waves on the melting-level focus rain, potentially multiplying intensity downwind of hills by a factor of rain fall speed divided by snow fall speed, and that the effect is maximised when the vertical profile near the melting-level is isothermal. A 2D diagnostic model based on linear gravity wave theory is used to investigate the record-breaking rainfall of December 2015 in the Lake District of northwest England. The pattern of vertical velocity is shown to have a good, qualitative fit to that of the Met Office’s operational, high-resolution UKV model averaged over 24 hours, suggesting that orographically excited standing waves were the principal cause of the rain. Precipitation trajectories suggest that a persistent, downstream, elevated wave caused by the Isle of Man maintained a spray of seeding ice particles directed towards the Lake District; that these grew whilst suspended in strong upslope flow before being focussed by the undulating melting-level into intense shafts of rain.
- Preprint
(4448 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Edward Carroll
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1973', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2023
reply
General comments:
The author introduces an interesting thought experiment regarding the role of orographically-induced gravity waves on precipitation distribution across the Isle of Man and the Lake District of northwest England. Unfortunately, the data presented in support of these ideas is insufficient to justify publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The author relies on relatively coarse operational model output that does not include any moisture variables. Additionally, verification of this model output is virtually absent, which significantly limits its credibility, especially when discussing orographic precipitation processes. A separate, higher resolution gravity wave model is also employed, whose results seem to be consistent with the operational model output. However, this does not mitigate the aforementioned lack of model validation. It also does not mitigate the absence of moisture variables in the analysis dataset. The author has to make numerous assumptions in his analysis to get around this limitation. I find many, if not most of these assumptions to be dubious.
Ultimately, the author makes assertions that are not supported with credible evidence. As a result, my recommendation is to reject the manuscript for publication.
Specific comments:
1. sections 2 and 3: The author goes into great detail about how gravity waves and an oscillating melting layer can impact the spatial distribution of precipitation across orography (i.e., Figs. 1-2; Equs. 1-4). He calls the areas of precipitation where the "trajectory" lines are closer together more "intense" than the areas where the trajectory lines are farther apart. If precipitation intensity is based on an areal integration, this may be an appropriate interpretation. However, precipitation intensity is typically based on precipitation rate, which is a mass flux for a given vertical column. The only way that precipitation intensity can be enhanced is by adding mass to the volume of hydrometeors through cloud microphysical processes. The author is not really addressing precipitation enhancement; rather, he is addressing precipitation redistribution.
2. sections 2 and 3: Does the author have any observational evidence to support the notion that a melting layer can oscillate as he hypothesizes? For example, are there any radar studies that show a bright band that oscillates in such a manner?
3. L274-279: This paragraph outlines the very limited nature of the data available to the author. This data was in the form of 24-hour mean fields from a single operational model simulation. The data was limited to horizontal and vertical winds and temperature. No moisture variables were available (i.e., water vapor, precipitating ice and/or liquid water). While the horizontal resolution was 1.5 km, there were only 14 vertical levels (~600 m resolution near the melting level). No attempt at validating the model output is evident. This dataset is clearly insufficient for addressing the processes discussed by the author.
4. L333-338: This paragraph makes a sweeping assertion: "However, the generally good correspondence between this output and the UKV, despite all the caveats, along with the remarkable steadiness of rain rate at Honister, strongly suggests that gravity waves were the main driver for vertical velocity over the period of extreme rainfall and therefore for the rain itself." The operational model output and corresponding gravity wave model output do not provide sufficient evidence to support this assertion. In particular, the lack of moisture variables eliminates evidence of possible alternative explanations based on cloud microphysics. The author does not present evidence about the depth of precipitation and whether there are hydrometeors aloft that could be influenced by the vertical velocity patterns described. For all we know, the precipitation could be very shallow in nature.
5. L461-463: The author states: "Of course, augmentation of rainfall by wash-out of droplets from the feeder cloud, essentially a cloud physics problem, is not included in this, neither is the growth by riming whilst ice particles are in near suspension over the windward slopes as
supercooled cloud droplets rise around them." This apparent "disclaimer" does not make any attempt to diminish the significance of these processes. It is quite possible that these processes are the dominant factors in the precipitation distribution associated with the case.6. L494-496: The author reasserts an unsupported conclusion that the rainfall in the case study was "principally driven by gravity wave motions".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1973-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Edward Carroll, 28 Oct 2023
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1973/egusphere-2023-1973-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Edward Carroll, 11 Nov 2023
reply
I have obtained some CERRA reanalysis data for the case which provides some support for the accuracy of the UKV and for inferences about snow production - see attached document.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Edward Carroll, 28 Oct 2023
reply
Edward Carroll
Edward Carroll
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
154 | 45 | 13 | 212 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 154
- PDF: 45
- XML: 13
- Total: 212
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1