the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Microphysics regimes due to haze-cloud interactions: cloud oscillation and cloud collapse
Abstract. It is known that aqueous haze particles can be activated to cloud droplets in a supersaturated environment. However, haze-cloud interactions have not been fully explored because, among other things, haze particles are not represented in most cloud-resolving models. Here, we conduct a series of large-eddy simulations of a cloud in a convection chamber using a haze-capable Eulerian-based bin microphysics scheme to explore haze-cloud interactions over a wide range of aerosol injection rates. Results show that at low aerosol injection rates (i.e., clean conditions), the cloud exists in a slow microphysics regime where cloud response is slow compared to the environmental change and droplet deactivation is negligible. At moderate aerosol injection rates (i.e., polluted conditions), the cloud is in a fast microphysics regime where cloud response is fast compared to the environmental change and haze-cloud interactions are important. The increase in liquid water mixing ratio with aerosol injection rate agrees well with the scaling law predicted by a previous theoretical study of these two microphysics regimes. More interestingly, two other microphysics regimes are observed at high aerosol injection rates: cloud oscillation and cloud collapse. Cloud oscillation occurs as a result of competition between haze and cloud droplets that lead to synchronized droplet activation/deactivation, while cloud collapse happens under weaker forcing of supersaturation where the chamber transfers cloud droplet to haze particles efficiently, leading to a significant decrease (collapse) of cloud droplet number concentration. Results from a box model using a particle-based microphysics approach show similar transitions across microphysics regimes – from slow microphysics, to fast microphysics, and then to cloud oscillation – confirming that cloud oscillation arises from complex interactions between haze and cloud droplets in a turbulent cloud. One special case of cloud collapse leading to a haze-only regime, occurs at extremely high aerosol injection rates, where the sedimentation of haze particles is balanced by the aerosol injection rate, without cloud droplet activation contributing substantially. Our results suggest that haze particles and their interactions with the cloud should be considered especially in polluted conditions, like fog or clouds close to the source of intense natural and anthropogenic aerosol emissions, or in highly dissipated clouds when droplet deactivation is important.
- Preprint
(11067 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1693', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2024
The present manuscript explores the interaction between haze particles and activated cloud droplets, and its effect on droplet size distribution of steady-state conditions obtained from the Pi convection chamber. The analyses are carried out by using large-eddy simulations (LES) of the Pi-chamber, with Eulerian bin microphysics that resolve the continuous process of haze growth and activation/deactivation. The main parameter of discussion is the aerosol injection rate, which regulates the amount of haze and cloud droplets in the chamber driving the system to two distinct regimes reported in a previous paper: fast and slow microphysics. It is argued that in the case of slow microphysics, corresponding to low aerosols injection rates, the transition form cloud droplets to haze is negligible, whereas a fast microphysical regime can lead to two novel regimes reported here: the cloud oscillation and cloud collapse. Oscillations are claimed to occur due to successive activation and deactivation events, whereas cloud collapse occurs when the condensation onto the particles surface is extremely efficient in reducing the saturation rate to equilibrium. The LES experiments done here clearly illustrate the importance of resolving the continuous growth of haze and its activation. Not only does it present a more accurate description of droplet formation, but it reveals new dynamical regimes.
This paper is well motivated, written and the results illustrate novel delicate features of cloud droplet activation through LES modelling. I recommend publishing this work subject to minor modifications and after the clarification of the comments below.
General questions
- It is mentioned on several occasions that the convection chamber is a turbulent domain. What is the role of turbulence in provoking oscillations? How is turbulence included in the box model? What fields does it affect?
- The origin of cloud oscillations needs to be better explained. The authors clearly explain how polluted conditions, i.e. fast microphysics regime, lead to more delicate interplay between haze and droplets. This makes as the interplay between the curvature and solute effects becomes more delicate. In the abstract, it is mentioned that “cloud oscillation arises from complex interactions between haze and cloud droplets in a turbulent cloud”, however the read-outs of figure 4 (last row) show that oscillations occur at what seems the activated radius-domain. Can the authors clarify this? It would be helpful on this regard to indicate more clearly (quantitatively) when the authors consider particles to be haze, perhaps by indicating the critical Köhler radius. Do the authors observe oscillations between haze and activated droplets? The oscillations in figures 1 and 4 seem to only be occurring at radii larger that the critical radius.
Specific questions
- Line 132-133: “Solute and curvature effects are not considered for droplet growth by condensation”. Does that mean that once the aerosols activates into a droplet, its growth is entirely proportional to the available supersaturation?
- Line 141: “evaporation can still occur due to turbulent supersaturation fluctuations”. What is the source/origin of these fluctuations? How are they controlled? Do they play a role in broadening the droplet size spectra?
- Line 145: Is the removal by sedimentation uniquely due to gravity or also due to vertically oscillation motion within the chamber? Hence, does it affect all particles equally or it affects more the larger ones?
- Does the sedimentation rate depend on the injection rate?
- Line 204: How is the turbulent mixing time defined in the context of the Pi-chamber?
- (5) represents particle removal, and it depends on the radius of the class of particles in question. Injection of aerosols also affects the number of particles, how is this accounted for in the full equation?
- The oscillations seem to be driven by aerosol injection rates and loss through sedimentation. If the system reaches a steady-state, I understand that injection and loss are compensated and, therefore, there is no net flux of particles. What, then, provokes oscillations, for example, in Figure 4 or 11?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1693-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1693', Shin-ichiro Shima, 15 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1693/egusphere-2024-1693-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Response to the reviewers' comments', Fan Yang, 30 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1693/egusphere-2024-1693-AC1-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
270 | 93 | 25 | 388 | 18 | 17 |
- HTML: 270
- PDF: 93
- XML: 25
- Total: 388
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1