the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jul 2024
Impact of Coarse-Mode Aerosol on Jiangxi Warm Clouds Considering Different Updraft and Activation Intensities: An SBM-FAST Approach
Abstract. The effects of different aerosol modes on warm clouds vary, with coarse-mode aerosols having a unique influence on cloud droplet growth and cloud-rain auto-conversion. Therefore, understanding the influence of coarse-mode aerosol concentrations on warm cloud formation and development is critical for improving weather prediction models and climate projections. This study uses the SBM-FAST scheme in the WRF model to assess how variations in coarse-mode aerosol concentrations (Ncm) affect the macro and micro characteristics of warm clouds in Jiangxi, China, focusing on the impacts under different updraft (W) and activation intensities through sensitivity experiments. Results indicate that higher Ncm enhances early-stage droplet number concentrations at the cloud base, accelerate cloud development. Increased Ncm also promotes earlier collision-coalescence processes, with more active formation and coalescence of larger droplets at higher Ncm concentrations. Yet, the response of cloud microphysics, like droplet concentration and relative dispersion (ε), to Ncm changes is not linear, depending on the combined effects of updraft strength (W) and cloud droplet activation. Lower W/activation ratios lead to lower droplet activation in suboptimal supersaturation, reducing average size but enhancing ε of cloud droplet. The number concentration of cloud droplet present initial decline then rise trend with increasing Ncm, which reflects the balance between the aerosol-activation replenishment and collision-coalescence depletion of small size cloud droplet, illustrating the nonlinear influence jointly caused by aerosol activation and droplet interactions.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2474 KB)
-
Supplement
(216 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2474 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(216 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1592', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1592', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Oct 2024
Review of “Impact of Coarse-Mode Aerosol on Jiangxi Warm Clouds Considering Different Updraft and Activation Intensities: An SBM-FAST Approach”
Authors: Yi Li and Xiaoli Liu
Summary:
In this study, the authors utilize the SBM-FAST bin microphysics scheme within the Weather Research and Forecasting Model to study the impact of increasing coarse mode aerosol number concentration (Ncm) on stratiform warm cloud micro- and macro physical properties over Jiangxi, China, also taking into account the effect of updraft intensities in modulating cloud-aerosol interactions. While this study explores an important and active area of research - the complex relationships between the aerosol number concentration, mode of aerosols, cloud droplet number concentration, relative dispersion of the cloud droplet spectrum, and updraft intensities - I think considerable work needs to be done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. In the Introduction between Lines 44-54, the authors discuss the literature regarding the complex relationships between the increase in aerosol number concentration (Na) and relative dispersion (ε). Given the size sensitivity of the impact of Na to ε (as mentioned in Line 55), to add more depth and context to the previous paragraph, the authors could also discuss how the previous studies define the “increase in Na” - whether it’s an increase in fine mode aerosols or coarse mode aerosols?
2. I agree with the first reviewer’s comments that this study is strikingly similar with the authors’ previously submitted manuscript. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2644/egusphere-2023-2644.pdf
The text is overwhelmingly similar throughout the paper where the words are either rearranged or the sentences slightly paraphrased. For example - In the Introduction, Lines 87-88 in the current manuscript: “In summary, under the background of climate change, variations in aerosols' physicochemical properties have significantly impacted the microphysical properties of warm clouds…”, whereas in the previous manuscript, Lines 88-89 read: “In summary, the changes in aerosol physicochemical properties under the climate change background significantly impact the microphysical characteristics of warm clouds.”
3. What is the physical reasoning or justification for the increase in Ncm values by 5, 50, and 500 times?
4. As the first reviewer has correctly pointed out, the simulation setup and design of this study is essentially the same as the previous study, with only changing the concentration of coarse mode aerosols by 5, 50, and 500 times from the control value. The experiment “CM5” in this study is the same as the experiment named “CM” in the previous study.
5. Fig. 3 of this study is essentially the same as Fig. 5 of the previous study. Both Figs. 4 of the two studies are similar as well.
Based on the similarities between the two manuscripts outlined above, I recommend rejecting the current manuscript. Echoing the first reviewer’s suggestions, I also advise the authors to rewrite the paper, address all concerns, and resubmit either as a single manuscript or as a series of papers (Part I and II). If the authors choose the latter, they should provide strong justification for doing so.
Minor comments:
- Include “stratiform” to specify the type of cloud studied in the abstract and elsewhere.
- Line 33: Define and provide more context to ε.
- In Figs. 15-18, the colored dots for CM5 and CM50 look relatively more stretched or squeezed than the other two columns. Please fix this.
- Line 19: “Lower W/activation ratios” - looks confusing. Rephrase.
- Line 67: change “mode” to “modes”
- Line 70: change to “strengthening”
- Line 91: change “obviously” to “obvious”
- The manuscript needs thorough proofreading to correct grammatical mistakes and rephrase sentences for greater clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1592-RC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1592', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1592', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Oct 2024
Review of “Impact of Coarse-Mode Aerosol on Jiangxi Warm Clouds Considering Different Updraft and Activation Intensities: An SBM-FAST Approach”
Authors: Yi Li and Xiaoli Liu
Summary:
In this study, the authors utilize the SBM-FAST bin microphysics scheme within the Weather Research and Forecasting Model to study the impact of increasing coarse mode aerosol number concentration (Ncm) on stratiform warm cloud micro- and macro physical properties over Jiangxi, China, also taking into account the effect of updraft intensities in modulating cloud-aerosol interactions. While this study explores an important and active area of research - the complex relationships between the aerosol number concentration, mode of aerosols, cloud droplet number concentration, relative dispersion of the cloud droplet spectrum, and updraft intensities - I think considerable work needs to be done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. In the Introduction between Lines 44-54, the authors discuss the literature regarding the complex relationships between the increase in aerosol number concentration (Na) and relative dispersion (ε). Given the size sensitivity of the impact of Na to ε (as mentioned in Line 55), to add more depth and context to the previous paragraph, the authors could also discuss how the previous studies define the “increase in Na” - whether it’s an increase in fine mode aerosols or coarse mode aerosols?
2. I agree with the first reviewer’s comments that this study is strikingly similar with the authors’ previously submitted manuscript. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2644/egusphere-2023-2644.pdf
The text is overwhelmingly similar throughout the paper where the words are either rearranged or the sentences slightly paraphrased. For example - In the Introduction, Lines 87-88 in the current manuscript: “In summary, under the background of climate change, variations in aerosols' physicochemical properties have significantly impacted the microphysical properties of warm clouds…”, whereas in the previous manuscript, Lines 88-89 read: “In summary, the changes in aerosol physicochemical properties under the climate change background significantly impact the microphysical characteristics of warm clouds.”
3. What is the physical reasoning or justification for the increase in Ncm values by 5, 50, and 500 times?
4. As the first reviewer has correctly pointed out, the simulation setup and design of this study is essentially the same as the previous study, with only changing the concentration of coarse mode aerosols by 5, 50, and 500 times from the control value. The experiment “CM5” in this study is the same as the experiment named “CM” in the previous study.
5. Fig. 3 of this study is essentially the same as Fig. 5 of the previous study. Both Figs. 4 of the two studies are similar as well.
Based on the similarities between the two manuscripts outlined above, I recommend rejecting the current manuscript. Echoing the first reviewer’s suggestions, I also advise the authors to rewrite the paper, address all concerns, and resubmit either as a single manuscript or as a series of papers (Part I and II). If the authors choose the latter, they should provide strong justification for doing so.
Minor comments:
- Include “stratiform” to specify the type of cloud studied in the abstract and elsewhere.
- Line 33: Define and provide more context to ε.
- In Figs. 15-18, the colored dots for CM5 and CM50 look relatively more stretched or squeezed than the other two columns. Please fix this.
- Line 19: “Lower W/activation ratios” - looks confusing. Rephrase.
- Line 67: change “mode” to “modes”
- Line 70: change to “strengthening”
- Line 91: change “obviously” to “obvious”
- The manuscript needs thorough proofreading to correct grammatical mistakes and rephrase sentences for greater clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1592-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 192 | 60 | 155 | 407 | 31 | 14 | 15 |
- HTML: 192
- PDF: 60
- XML: 155
- Total: 407
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 159 | 37 |
| China | 2 | 32 | 7 |
| Germany | 3 | 23 | 5 |
| Romania | 4 | 17 | 4 |
| Denmark | 5 | 15 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 159
Yi Li
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2474 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(216 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote