the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact on the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition of the interaction of cloud microphysics and macrophysics with large-scale circulation
Abstract. This study examines the impact of the interaction of cloud microphysics and macrophysics with the large-scale circulation on stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition (SCT) by combining large-eddy simulation (LES) with a parameterization of weak temperature gradient (WTG) stratified adjustment. The WTG approximates the interaction with the large-scale circulation by inducing domain-mean subsidence to compensate for buoyancy perturbations with respect to a reference thermodynamic profile. A stationary sea-salt sprayer perturbs the transitioning clouds over the Lagrangian domain moving along the trajectory. It is revealed that the cloud response to aerosol perturbation is markedly different depending on whether stratified adjustments in the large-scale circulation in response to buoyancy perturbations are considered. In both cases, aerosol injection into heavily precipitating clouds suppresses precipitation and enhances entrainment. Without application of WTG, cloud-top height rises without a compensating adjustment in subsidence, and the drizzle-induced thinning of the stratocumulus layer is delayed by several days. When WTG adjustment is applied, intensified large-scale subsidence restrains the growth of cloud top height, and increases warming and drying of the stratocumulus layer leads to cloud thinning. The thinned clouds, characterized by reduced emissivity and weakened longwave (LW) radiative cooling efficiency, become more susceptible to cloud breakup. Simultaneously, the reduced sensible heat flux from the surface by precipitation suppression reduces turbulence within the boundary layer. For lightly precipitating clouds, the transition, mainly driven by the warming effect due to enhanced entrainment by increased sea-surface temperature ('deepening-warming' mechanism), is hastened by aerosol injection due to accelerated cloud thinning. For heavily precipitating stratocumulus, in which the pace of SCT is fast due to the loss of clouds by drizzle ('drizzle-depletion' feedback), aerosol injection delays the transition by only a few hours because the deepening-warming mechanism becomes more important by intensified subsidence. Our results imply that the magnitude of the cooling effects of aerosol may be overestimated by as much as ~15–30 W m-2 when the adjustment in large-scale circulation is not accounted for in a limited-domain model simulations.
- Preprint
(11622 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2439', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Sep 2024
Some general comments
The paper demonstrates that including the response of large-scale subsidence to changes in the mean vertical buoyancy profiles is crucial for assessing the strength of the cloud response to salt spraying in the stratocumulus to cumulus transition (SCT) regime. It may be helpful to give more attention to explaining the choices made in setting up the vertical profiles of aerosol concentrations (Na) according to Table 1, particularly since Na is relatively low in the boundary layer and higher in the free troposphere, which may be typical of the location studied in the paper. Additionally, as the study on the interaction between boundary layer turbulence and large-scale circulation is performed using a high-resolution large-eddy simulation model on a small domain, could the authors briefly discuss the pros and cons of this approach compared to using a global model, such as the one applied by Wan et al. (Nature, 2024)?
(Minor) remarks
line 117: Include a reference to the Morrison microphysics scheme?
line 135: The vertical profiles of the buoyancy do generally depend on time and space, and according to the Lagrangian setup of the simulations, the position of the LES domain changes with time. However, it is not immediately clear whether the 'diagnosed buoyancy profiles' are taken constant during the simulation, or that they depend on the position (and local time) of the LES domain? The results suggest the latter, in particular the caption of Fig. A1 states that "The red line represent(s) the ERA5 climatology at the location of climatological trajectory on Day 2" (note that Fig A1b does not show a red line). All the relevant details on the WTG application are present, but I find them a bit scattered around in the manuscript. As a side note, the main text mentions "domain-mean anomalies of virtual temperature and diabatic heating with respect to diagnosed buoyancy profiles", while Appendix A uses the virtual potential temperature. Perhaps include their definitions?
Line 247, the buoyancy flux used is different from its definition <w'b'> = g/ <w'theta_v'> (with <> indicating a slab mean value). The statement that "changes in SHF play a leading role in changes in the surface buoyancy flux in these simulations" seems a bit too simplistic. The SHF and LHF values in the Sandu cases are on the order of 10 and 100-200 W/m2, respectively (see Sandu and Stevens 2011). Because the LHF can be an order of magnitude larger than the SHF, the term 0.07 x LHF can become as large as the SHF.
2.3 Data. N_a is not defined (first occurence in the text, line 156). Could the initial values for N_a in the MBL and FT presented in Table 1 be motivated? In particular the lower values of N_a in the MBL compared to the ones in the free troposphere?
Line 157, Spin up procedure. An 18 hour spin-up period is applied. Can some more details be given about how this is done? For example, are the large-scale conditions set constant or not during spin up, is nudging applied?
Line 158, can the choice of the aerosol injection rate be motivated? Does it involve evaporative cooling of the sprayed water?
Line 163, rotation of the domain. Due to surface friction and the resulting momentum fluxes the wind in the boundary layer will turn with respect to the geostrophic wind direction. However, it is stated that (with a rotated domain) 'the x component of background wind velocity is approximately zero', which suggests that the ageostrophic component of the wind vector is close to zero. Please clarify.
Line 177, Figs 2 and 3, f_c is defined as a cloud fraction but also as a cloud cover. The cloud fraction is often defined as the ratio of cloudy area to the total area on a horizontal plane as is applied in Fig. 3, but Fig. 2 shows the cloud cover (ratio of cloudy air columns to all vertical columns).
Line 188, 'intensified subsidence .. delivers more CCN into the MBL' . Aren't CCN entrained into the MBL, subsidence is just pushing down the boundary layer?
Line 279, 'turbulence dissipation by the decreased surface buoyancy flux'. The sign of the buoyancy flux in the subcloud layer matters in this respect, at heights where it is negative it will tend to diminish turbulent kinetic energy.
Line 286, Can you explain what is meant with 'the aerosol-cloud interaction is not yet saturated'?
Appendix A. The WTG application is strongly based on ERA5 fields. Given the typical biases in weather and climate models of various quantities in the SCT regime, it is maybe worthwhile to briefly discuss the accuracy of the vertical profiles of the thermodynamic variables in the SCT regime in ERA5?
Fig. 2: refer to 'large-scale' vertical velocity in Fig. 2b. Explain the meaning of the grey bands?
Typos
line 105: "Arkawa"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2439-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2439', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2024
Chun et al 2024 ACPThis article explores the impact of large scale circulation response to aerosol perturbation in marine low clouds. The authors use the weak-temp. gradient framework for estimating the changes to the large-scale circulation. This work will be of interest to the aerosol-cloud interaction community. The article is well written and should be considered for publication after the comments listed below are addressed.Comments:1. Lines 70-75: Does Dagan 2022 quantify the time scale for this response of the large-scale circulation?2. Line 114: \approx might be better than \sim. Please check.3. The description of WTG is very poor. Not enough details are provided except for a reference to Blossey et al 2009. Considering the novelty of the topic it would be good to have a nice description of WTG (with equations) and the values for the parameters used in this study. The focus should be on providing enough information so that someone who does not know about WTG knows enough to follow the paper. Currently, WTG seems like a black box switch that was turned on and that's it.What equation was solved? My guess is some kind of 2D wave wave equation. What is the physical meaning of the terms in the equation? Over what timescales do they operate?The authors should use sec 2.1 as reference. SAM is a well documented model, yet the authors have provided enough details about the model in Sec 2.1. Please provide more details about WTG.4. Line 145: please state the months5. Line 151: What about the subsidence corrections given in Bretherton Blossey 2014? This was used in Yamaguchi et al 2017 and Prabhakaran et al 2024. Any comments?6. How reliable are the buoyancy profiles in ERA5 near the inversion? It is not clear to me why in the CTRL case WTG is required. See the correction to subsidence provided in Bretherton Blossey 2014. Wouldn't this address the concerns associated with buoyancy anomalies? Additionally, the buoyancy anomalies could also be an artifact of the surface flux parameterization and not related to subsidence. Any comments about this?7. How does the subsidence change with time? Wouldn't the dilution of aerosol due to lateral spreading weaken the changes in subsidence? And how do you justify the uniform changes in subsidence across the domain? On Day 1, the aerosol is still spreading laterally.8. Lines 247-248: LHF>>SHF, so changes in LHF is also important. How do you explain this?9. Lines 397: Please include more references, not just Chun et al 2023.10. Can you comment on the limitations of WTG? Dagan et al 2022 raised critical points regarding the results in ABott & Cronin. A brief discussion about this would improve the paper further.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2024-2439-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
286 | 107 | 14 | 407 | 11 | 8 |
- HTML: 286
- PDF: 107
- XML: 14
- Total: 407
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1