the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulations of primary and secondary ice production during an Arctic mixed-phase cloud case from the NASCENT campaign
Abstract. The Arctic is the fastest warming environment on Earth and the role of clouds in this warming is undisputed. The representation of Arctic clouds and their phase distribution, i.e. the amount of ice and supercooled water, influences predictions of future Arctic warming. Therefore, it is essential that cloud phase is correctly captured by models in order to accurately predict the future Arctic climate. Ice crystal formation in clouds happens through ice nucleation (primary ice production) and ice multiplication (secondary ice production). In common weather and climate models, rime-splintering is the only secondary ice production process included. In addition, prescribed number concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or cloud droplets and ice-nucleating particles are often overestimated in Arctic environments by standard model configurations. This can lead to a misrepresentation of the phase distribution and precipitation formation in Arctic mixed-phase clouds, with important implications for the Arctic surface energy budget. During the Ny-Ålesund Aerosol Cloud Experiment (NASCENT) a holographic probe mounted on a tethered balloon took in-situ measurements of ice crystal and cloud droplet number and mass concentrations in Svalbard, Norway, during fall 2019 and spring 2020. In this study, we choose one case study from this campaign showing evidence of strong secondary ice production and use the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to simulate it at a high vertical and spatial resolution. We test the performance of different microphysical parametrizations and apply a new state-of-the-art secondary ice parametrization. We find that the agreement with observations highly depends on the prescribed cloud condensation nuclei/cloud droplet and ice-nucleating particle concentration and requires an enhancement of secondary ice production processes. Lowering mass mixing ratio thresholds for rime splintering inside the Morrison microphysics scheme is crucial for enabling secondary ice production and thereby matching observations for the right reasons. The latter is a prerequisite for reliable simulations of Arctic mixed-phase cloud responses to future temperature- or aerosol perturbations.
-
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
(4063 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4063 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jan 2024
This is a straightforward and thorough study which compares a series of model simulations to observations of a mixed-phase cloud to determine what changes are necessary to the microphysics scheme in order to reproduce the observed microphysical structure of the cloud. While I think that the discussion at times becomes tedious and the results could be presented more concisely, I can find no fundamental problems with the methodology or the interpretation of the results. The main takeaways of the paper are a number of recommendations to modelers for accurately representing SIP processes in Arctic clouds which I believe could be useful for the modeling community. Below are mainly suggestions for improvement and a few questions about minor points that were unclear.
Abstract: Just a suggestion for revision. Currently the abstract is about 2/3 preamble and 1/3 about the study. I would recommend putting more emphasis on the results of the study and less emphasis on the preamble.
Lines 73-80: I think that a more direct statement of this study's objective would be useful for framing the paper. I didn't have a clear sense for where the paper was going after reading the introduction.
Line 130: I initially thought that Eq. 1 could be found in the given citation. Then, five lines down, Eq 1 appears awkwardly without context. I recommend moving Eq. 1 to appear immediately after it is mentioned, as is typically done with equations.
Line 190-191: If CCNC is 9/cc for updrafts, downdrafts, and negligible, then is this simply a 1-moment version of the scheme? And if not, then what activation scheme is used if not Cohard and Pinty?
Table 1: Does the CCN type really matter, particularly for MYadap?
Line 387: "The overview over in which ..." ... please clarify.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2907-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2907/egusphere-2023-2907-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Britta Schäfer, 15 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jan 2024
This is a straightforward and thorough study which compares a series of model simulations to observations of a mixed-phase cloud to determine what changes are necessary to the microphysics scheme in order to reproduce the observed microphysical structure of the cloud. While I think that the discussion at times becomes tedious and the results could be presented more concisely, I can find no fundamental problems with the methodology or the interpretation of the results. The main takeaways of the paper are a number of recommendations to modelers for accurately representing SIP processes in Arctic clouds which I believe could be useful for the modeling community. Below are mainly suggestions for improvement and a few questions about minor points that were unclear.
Abstract: Just a suggestion for revision. Currently the abstract is about 2/3 preamble and 1/3 about the study. I would recommend putting more emphasis on the results of the study and less emphasis on the preamble.
Lines 73-80: I think that a more direct statement of this study's objective would be useful for framing the paper. I didn't have a clear sense for where the paper was going after reading the introduction.
Line 130: I initially thought that Eq. 1 could be found in the given citation. Then, five lines down, Eq 1 appears awkwardly without context. I recommend moving Eq. 1 to appear immediately after it is mentioned, as is typically done with equations.
Line 190-191: If CCNC is 9/cc for updrafts, downdrafts, and negligible, then is this simply a 1-moment version of the scheme? And if not, then what activation scheme is used if not Cohard and Pinty?
Table 1: Does the CCN type really matter, particularly for MYadap?
Line 387: "The overview over in which ..." ... please clarify.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2907-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2907/egusphere-2023-2907-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2907', Britta Schäfer, 15 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
371 | 121 | 27 | 519 | 21 | 17 |
- HTML: 371
- PDF: 121
- XML: 27
- Total: 519
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Robert Oscar David
Paraskevi Georgakaki
Julie Pasquier
Georgia Sotiropoulou
Trude Storelvmo
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4063 KB) - Metadata XML