the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sensitivity of ice cloud radiative heating to optical, macro- and microphysical properties
Abstract. Ice clouds play an important role in the atmospheric radiation budget, both by reflecting shortwave radiation and absorbing or emitting longwave radiation. These effects can modulate the cloud radiative heating (CRH) rate, which in turn influences circulation and precipitation. Ice cloud radiative properties depend on the size, shape (or habit), and complexity, including surface roughness or hollowness, of in-cloud ice crystals. To better predict ice-cloud radiative effects, there has been a continuous effort to account for more ice crystal habits and complexity in current radiative transfer calculations. Here, we conduct a series of idealized single-column radiative transfer calculations to study how ice-CRH responds to including ice crystal complexity. We evaluate four ice optical schemes for a range of ice cloud formation temperatures or altitudes, geometrical depths, ice water paths (IWP), and ice crystal effective radii. In addition, we present a heating rate sensitivity matrix as a condensed visualization of the CRH response across a broad parameter space. We find that including ice complexity in cold thin clouds with high IWP, can diminish the net in-cloud heating and cloud-top cooling by 2.5 K d-1 and 15 K d-1, respectively. Furthermore, while temperature-based schemes behave similarly to other schemes at warmer temperatures, they predict net CRH at cloud bottom more than 10 K d-1 higher than size-dependent schemes at the coldest temperatures. Either weakening of CRH by ice complexity or strengthening by temperature-dependent schemes can alter anvil cloud lifetime and evolution, as well as large-scale atmospheric circulation.
- Preprint
(1398 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2004 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3212', Adam Sokol, 25 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3212/egusphere-2024-3212-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3212', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Dec 2024
Review comments of “Sensitivity of ice cloud radiative heating to optical, macro- and microphysical properties” by Edgardo I. Sepulveda Araya et al.
This paper presents an interesting study conducting a series of idealized single-column radiative transfer calculations to show how ice cloud vertical radiative heating (CRH) changes when different optical property schemes with different levels of ice crystal complexities are involved. Four ice optical schemes for a range of ice cloud formation temperatures or altitudes,
geometrical depths, ice water paths (IWP), and ice crystal effective radii are considered. The results are helpful to the readers in knowing the impacts of different ice property scheme on ice cloud CRH simulations. The topic is within the scope of ACP, and the paper is logically organized and clearly written. I mostly support the publication of this paper, but there are some suggestions for the authors and some concerns to be addressed.
1. The authors may need to consider changing the title. The present title seems to be broad and comprehensive, but in fact, the present study has several limitations, such as idealized, single-column calculation, a few (not all) cloud properties, and for several optical schemes.
2. It is suggested that the authors show more details (figures and discussions) about the four ice optical schemes used in this study, such as the mass extinction coefficients, single-scattering albedo, asymmetry factor, etc., in the main text.. so that the readers could have a better understanding of the optical properties before reading the sensitivity studies for better comprehension.
3. Although the authors have already done a lot of work to evaluate the sensitivities of ice cloud radiative heating to optical, macro- and microphysical properties, the results still seem to be limited given that many more key parameters are fixed here (line 100-105), such as the skin temperature, tropical oceans, SW surface albedo, LW surface emissivity, effective solar zenith angle (SZA), etc. How would the different settings of these parameters could possibly affect the validity and magnitude of the present results? I think the results would be even quite valuable if the authors could elaborate on this.
4. The figure captions in this paper looks weird. The authors may need to explain what the figures are before discussing the details. For example, Figure captions of 1, 2, and 3.
5. The last but important thing that the readers would care about, is how well the simulations perform as compared to the reality? This again would be very helpful and valuable if the authors could elaborate on this question.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3212-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
169 | 44 | 11 | 224 | 28 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 44
- XML: 11
- Total: 224
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1