the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Water isotopic characterisation of the cloud-circulation coupling in the North Atlantic trades. Part 1: A process-oriented evaluation of COSMOiso simulations with EUREC4A observations
Abstract. Stable water isotope observations have the potential to provide information on cloud processes in the trade-wind region, in particular when combined with high-resolution model simulations. In order to evaluate this potential, nested convection-resolving COSMOiso simulations with horizontal grid spacings of 10, 5, and 1 km were carried out in this study over the tropical Atlantic for the time period of the EUREC4A field experiment. To keep the conditions in the domain as close as possible to the real meteorology, we applied a spectral nudging of horizontal winds towards reanalysis data. The comparison to airborne in situ and remote sensing observations shows that the three simulations are able to distinguish between different mesoscale cloud organisation patterns as well as between periods with comparably high and low rain rates. Precipitation, cloud fraction and liquid water content are sensitive to the grid spacing. Cloud fraction and liquid water content show a better agreement with aircraft observations with higher spatial resolution. Contrastingly, temperature, humidity, and isotopes in vapour remain fairly unaffected by the model resolution. A low-level cold-dry bias, including too depleted vapour in the subcloud and cloud layer and too enriched vapour in the free troposphere, is found in all three simulations. Furthermore, the simulated secondary isotope variable d-excess in vapour is overestimated compared to observations. Special attention is given to the cloud base level, the formation altitude of shallow cumulus clouds, which are rooted in the thermals of the subcloud layer. The temporal variability of the simulated isotope variables at cloud base agrees reasonably well with observations, with correlations of the flight-to-flight data as high as 0.69 for δ2H and 0.74 for d-excess. A close examination of different mesoscale cloud base features, including clouds and clear-sky dry-warm patches, and their isotopic characteristics shows that i) these features are represented faithfully in the model with similar frequency of occurrence, isotope signals and specific humidity anomalies as found in the observations (+2 ‰ to +5 ‰ [+2 g kg−1] for precipitating clouds vs. −3 ‰ to −4 ‰ [−2 g kg−1] in dry-warm patches for δ2H [q]) and ii) the δ2H of cloud base vapour at the hourly time scale is mainly controlled by mesoscale transport and not by local microphysical processes while the d-excess is mainly controlled by large-scale drivers. Overall, this evaluation of COSMOiso, including the isotopic characterisation of cloud base features, suggests that the simulations can be used for investigating the role of atmospheric circulations on different scales for controlling the formation of shallow cumulus clouds in the trade-wind region, as will be done in part 2 of this study. Additionally, we provide explicit recommendations for adaptations of the modelling setup to be tested in future research.
-
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
(11310 KB)
-
Supplement
(10438 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(11310 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(10438 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jun 2023
Overview
This is a review of "Water isotope characteristics of the cloud-circulation coupling in the North-Atlantic trades. Part 1: A process-oriented evaluation of COSMO_iso simulations with EUREC4A observations" by Villiger et al.. This paper is part of a multi-part paper of which I have only reviewed Part 1. This paper is an evaluation of COSMO simulations that are to be used to interpret the mechanisms behind trade wind cumulus.I find the paper and the methods interesting, but there are some things that can be improved, therefore I suggest major revisions.
First of all, I would like to comment that the paper is thoroughly written, it is clear what has been done and what the results and interpretation of the experiments are. Also, I appreciate that the authors have made nice figures with a consistent layout and sizing throughout the paper, showing that the paper has been made with care.
Despite the results being clearly explained, I did not find it easy to extract the true motivation of the paper. From the title I expected the paper to be primarily about validating the model for isotopes studies, but in the end it seems to be more about evaluating COSMO_iso for trade wind cumulus simulations. Maybe the whole study could benefit from reducing this paper largely in size and merge it with the other Part 2 paper, in order to have a very original isotopes paper.
One thing that I found particularly striking, and maybe even worrying is that the authors state that the ultimate goal is to use isotopes and simulations to interpret the cloud system better, but at the same time, they conclude that while precipitation, cloud fraction and liquid water content are sensitive to grid spacing, temperature, humidity, and isotopes are not. If this is the case, how can isotopes then be ultimately be of help in learning about cloud processes? Also, if cloud processes are key, wouldn't it make more sense to do high-resolution large-eddy simulations with isotopes, as these capture the cloud processes much better? I would like to ask the authors to clarify the motivation and to convince the reader better that their goal has chance in succeeding.
Also, the authors present suggestions for improvement in the conclusion that in my view should be conducted as the suggested improvements would largely increase the qualities of the simulations and the work does not look that extensive.
Detailed points
- Line 1: Why do isotopes have this potential? Please state this
- Line 10: Doesn't this statement show that the simulations will not help much in interpreting the isotope measurements?
- Line 22-25: I do not understand how the results stated before lead to the conclusion that COSMO_iso evaluation suggests that the simulations can be used for studying the impact of circulation on clouds, as cloud properties do not converge with resolution.
- Introduction: the introduction is lacking hypotheses how isotopes could help in improving understanding. It would help the reader (I am a reader that knows very little about isotopes) to state how isotope measurements in combination with simulations could show something that the simulations, nor the data analysis of isotopes alone could not.
- Line 204: The cited papers from Seifert & Beheng describe a 2 moment scheme. Please clarify.
- Line 206: How does one explicitly resolve shallow convection at grid spacings larger than the size of a shallow cloud?
- Section 2.2 is very well written and explains the data collection very well.
- Line 410: What is your opinion on the quality of the precipitation distribution? Is it good enough? Should we expect further improvements if we move to LES resolution?
- Section 4.1: One open question connecting to my main comments is how well do we understand isotopic processes? Are there indications that the results presented here also teach us something new about isotopic fractionation itself?
- Conclusions: I sometimes wonder if this separation in Flower, Sugar, Gravel, Fish is bringing so much progress to the field. It is a rather arbitrary classification and one could wonder if these are really the fundamental types. Do the isotope characteristics also vary significantly between the types?
- Line 685: should this sensitivity analysis not be part of this paper? The goal is to let COSMO reproduce the case as good as possible, and there are clear deficiencies.
- Line 695: Same as the previous comment. Please try this, as you need high quality simulations for your purpose.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-449-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Leonie Villiger, 10 Sep 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jun 2023
Overview
This is a review of "Water isotope characteristics of the cloud-circulation coupling in the North-Atlantic trades. Part 1: A process-oriented evaluation of COSMO_iso simulations with EUREC4A observations" by Villiger et al.. This paper is part of a multi-part paper of which I have only reviewed Part 1. This paper is an evaluation of COSMO simulations that are to be used to interpret the mechanisms behind trade wind cumulus.I find the paper and the methods interesting, but there are some things that can be improved, therefore I suggest major revisions.
First of all, I would like to comment that the paper is thoroughly written, it is clear what has been done and what the results and interpretation of the experiments are. Also, I appreciate that the authors have made nice figures with a consistent layout and sizing throughout the paper, showing that the paper has been made with care.
Despite the results being clearly explained, I did not find it easy to extract the true motivation of the paper. From the title I expected the paper to be primarily about validating the model for isotopes studies, but in the end it seems to be more about evaluating COSMO_iso for trade wind cumulus simulations. Maybe the whole study could benefit from reducing this paper largely in size and merge it with the other Part 2 paper, in order to have a very original isotopes paper.
One thing that I found particularly striking, and maybe even worrying is that the authors state that the ultimate goal is to use isotopes and simulations to interpret the cloud system better, but at the same time, they conclude that while precipitation, cloud fraction and liquid water content are sensitive to grid spacing, temperature, humidity, and isotopes are not. If this is the case, how can isotopes then be ultimately be of help in learning about cloud processes? Also, if cloud processes are key, wouldn't it make more sense to do high-resolution large-eddy simulations with isotopes, as these capture the cloud processes much better? I would like to ask the authors to clarify the motivation and to convince the reader better that their goal has chance in succeeding.
Also, the authors present suggestions for improvement in the conclusion that in my view should be conducted as the suggested improvements would largely increase the qualities of the simulations and the work does not look that extensive.
Detailed points
- Line 1: Why do isotopes have this potential? Please state this
- Line 10: Doesn't this statement show that the simulations will not help much in interpreting the isotope measurements?
- Line 22-25: I do not understand how the results stated before lead to the conclusion that COSMO_iso evaluation suggests that the simulations can be used for studying the impact of circulation on clouds, as cloud properties do not converge with resolution.
- Introduction: the introduction is lacking hypotheses how isotopes could help in improving understanding. It would help the reader (I am a reader that knows very little about isotopes) to state how isotope measurements in combination with simulations could show something that the simulations, nor the data analysis of isotopes alone could not.
- Line 204: The cited papers from Seifert & Beheng describe a 2 moment scheme. Please clarify.
- Line 206: How does one explicitly resolve shallow convection at grid spacings larger than the size of a shallow cloud?
- Section 2.2 is very well written and explains the data collection very well.
- Line 410: What is your opinion on the quality of the precipitation distribution? Is it good enough? Should we expect further improvements if we move to LES resolution?
- Section 4.1: One open question connecting to my main comments is how well do we understand isotopic processes? Are there indications that the results presented here also teach us something new about isotopic fractionation itself?
- Conclusions: I sometimes wonder if this separation in Flower, Sugar, Gravel, Fish is bringing so much progress to the field. It is a rather arbitrary classification and one could wonder if these are really the fundamental types. Do the isotope characteristics also vary significantly between the types?
- Line 685: should this sensitivity analysis not be part of this paper? The goal is to let COSMO reproduce the case as good as possible, and there are clear deficiencies.
- Line 695: Same as the previous comment. Please try this, as you need high quality simulations for your purpose.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-449-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-449', Leonie Villiger, 10 Sep 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
298 | 133 | 21 | 452 | 37 | 10 | 9 |
- HTML: 298
- PDF: 133
- XML: 21
- Total: 452
- Supplement: 37
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Leonie Villiger
Marina Dütsch
Sandrine Bony
Marie Lothon
Stephan Pfahl
Heini Wernli
Pierre-Etienne Brilouet
Patrick Chazette
Pierre Coutris
Julien Delanoë
Cyrille Flamant
Alfons Schwarzenboeck
Martin Werner
Franziska Aemisegger
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(11310 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(10438 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper