the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulating the seeder-feeder impacts on cloud ice and precipitation over the Alps
Abstract. The ice phase impacts many cloud properties as well as cloud lifetime. Ice particles that sediment into a lower cloud from an upper cloud (external seeder-feeder process) or into the mixed-phase region of a deep cloud from cirrus levels (internal seeder-feeder process) can influence the ice phase of the lower cloud, amplify cloud glaciation and enhance surface precipitation. Recently, numerical weather prediction modeling studies have aimed at representing the ice crystal number concentration in mixed-phase clouds more accurately by including secondary ice formation processes. The increase in the ice crystal number concentration can impact the number of ice particles that sediment into the lower cloud and alter its composition and precipitation formation. In the Swiss Alps, the orography permits the formation of orographic clouds, making it ideal for studying the occurrence of multi-layered clouds and the seeder-feeder process. We present results from a case study on May 18, 2016, showing the occurrence frequency of multi-layered clouds and the seeder-feeder process. About half of all observed clouds were categorized as multi-layered, and the external seeder-feeder process occurred in 10 % of these clouds. In between cloud layers, ≈ 60 % of the ice particle mass was lost due to sublimation or melting. The external seeder-feeder process was found to be more important than the internal seeder-feeder process with regard to the impact on precipitation. In the case where the external seeder-feeder process was inhibited, the average surface precipitation and riming rate over the domain were both reduced by 8.5 % and 3.9 %, respectively. When ice-graupel collisions were allowed, further large reductions were seen in the liquid water fraction and riming rate. Inhibiting the internal seeder-feeder process enhanced the liquid water fraction by 6 % compared to a reduction of 5.8 % in the cloud condensate and, therefore, pointing towards the deamplification in cloud glaciation and a reduction in surface precipitation. Adding to the observational evidence of frequent seeder-feeder situations at least over Switzerland Proske et al. (2021), our study highlights the extensive influence of sedimenting ice particles on the properties of feeder clouds as well as on precipitation formation.
-
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
(17034 KB)
-
Supplement
(6118 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(17034 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6118 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-874', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-874', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Dec 2023
Review of Manuscript # egusphere-2023-874: “Simulating the seeder-feeder impacts on cloud ice and precipitation over the Alps” by Dedekind et al.
General comments:
The authors used the COSMO model and a two-moment microphysics scheme to simulate a real case of orographic clouds over the Alps and conduct sensitivity experiments to investigate how the seeder-feeder process influence cloud and precipitation development. Overall, the manuscript is well organized, and the logic is clear. The findings in this study can enhance the understanding of impacts of seeder-feeder process. I would recommend minor revision for this manuscript. Specific comments are listed as follows for consideration.
Specific comments:
- Experiment Design and Simulation Evaluation: The authors should provide more details on the experiment design and simulation evaluation. How about the evolution of simulated clouds compared to the observed? How about the comparison in precipitation? When to remove the ice particles in the sensitivity experiments? Only during the two time periods analyzed in this study?
- Uncertainties in Microphysics Scheme: The study is mainly based on the simulations of a real case, so the authors should conduct further analysis on how the uncertainties of the microphysics scheme, especially the parameterization of some microphysical processes such as riming and depositional growth influence the seeder-feeder process.
- Is it possible to give some average vertical profiles of process rates in difference simulations to show their changes clearly?
- Line 33: “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen” -> “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen (WBF)”
- Line 39: “sedimenting ice particles from the feeder cloud” or “from the seeder cloud”?
- Line 99: “CLC” or “CAF”? How does the model define “cloud area fraction”? based on cloud mixing ratio?
- Line 114: “Fig. 1a” -> “Fig. 1b”
- Figure 2: Colorbar is not clear.
- Line 158: “13:00” -> “13:30”?
- Figure 3: What’s “occurrence frequency of the total cloud tops”?
- Lines 234-236: The authors analyzed correlation coefficient here. I would say higher coefficient does not necessarily mean higher contribution, especially if the authors calculated correlation coefficient using simultaneous time series. The ice growth through deposition can contribute to the later surface precipitation. The authors should rewrite the related analysis and draw conclusions carefully.
- Section 3.2.5: Does the microphysics scheme include rime splintering process? How does this process rate change in sensitivity experiments?
- Line 286: “SIP” -> “secondary ice production (SIP)”
- Line 326: “Figs. 10a, b” -> “Figs. S10a, b”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-874-RC2 - AC1: 'AC1 and AC2', Zane Dedekind, 11 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-874', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-874', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Dec 2023
Review of Manuscript # egusphere-2023-874: “Simulating the seeder-feeder impacts on cloud ice and precipitation over the Alps” by Dedekind et al.
General comments:
The authors used the COSMO model and a two-moment microphysics scheme to simulate a real case of orographic clouds over the Alps and conduct sensitivity experiments to investigate how the seeder-feeder process influence cloud and precipitation development. Overall, the manuscript is well organized, and the logic is clear. The findings in this study can enhance the understanding of impacts of seeder-feeder process. I would recommend minor revision for this manuscript. Specific comments are listed as follows for consideration.
Specific comments:
- Experiment Design and Simulation Evaluation: The authors should provide more details on the experiment design and simulation evaluation. How about the evolution of simulated clouds compared to the observed? How about the comparison in precipitation? When to remove the ice particles in the sensitivity experiments? Only during the two time periods analyzed in this study?
- Uncertainties in Microphysics Scheme: The study is mainly based on the simulations of a real case, so the authors should conduct further analysis on how the uncertainties of the microphysics scheme, especially the parameterization of some microphysical processes such as riming and depositional growth influence the seeder-feeder process.
- Is it possible to give some average vertical profiles of process rates in difference simulations to show their changes clearly?
- Line 33: “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen” -> “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen (WBF)”
- Line 39: “sedimenting ice particles from the feeder cloud” or “from the seeder cloud”?
- Line 99: “CLC” or “CAF”? How does the model define “cloud area fraction”? based on cloud mixing ratio?
- Line 114: “Fig. 1a” -> “Fig. 1b”
- Figure 2: Colorbar is not clear.
- Line 158: “13:00” -> “13:30”?
- Figure 3: What’s “occurrence frequency of the total cloud tops”?
- Lines 234-236: The authors analyzed correlation coefficient here. I would say higher coefficient does not necessarily mean higher contribution, especially if the authors calculated correlation coefficient using simultaneous time series. The ice growth through deposition can contribute to the later surface precipitation. The authors should rewrite the related analysis and draw conclusions carefully.
- Section 3.2.5: Does the microphysics scheme include rime splintering process? How does this process rate change in sensitivity experiments?
- Line 286: “SIP” -> “secondary ice production (SIP)”
- Line 326: “Figs. 10a, b” -> “Figs. S10a, b”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-874-RC2 - AC1: 'AC1 and AC2', Zane Dedekind, 11 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
199 | 89 | 25 | 313 | 25 | 14 | 12 |
- HTML: 199
- PDF: 89
- XML: 25
- Total: 313
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Zane Dedekind
Ulrike Proske
Sylvaine Ferrachat
Ulrike Lohmann
David Neubauer
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(17034 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6118 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper