the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Measurement Report: A survey of meteorological and cloud properties during ACTIVATE's postfrontal flights and their suitability for Lagrangian case studies
Abstract. Postfrontal clouds, often appearing as marine cold-air outbreaks (MCAOs) along Eastern seaboards, undergo overcast-to-broken cloud regime transitions. Earth system models exhibit diverse radiative biases connected to postfrontal clouds, rendering these marine boundary layer (MBL) clouds a major source of uncertainty in projected global-mean temperature. The recent NASA multi-year campaign Aerosol Cloud meTeorology Interactions oVer the western ATlantic Experiment (ACTIVATE) therefore dedicated most of its resources to sampling postfrontal MCAOs, deploying 71 flights from 2020 through 2022. We provide an overview of (1) the synoptic context within the parent extratropical cyclone, (2) the meteorological conditions with respect to the season, (3) the suitability of case data and measurements for Lagrangian analysis and modeling studies, and (4) the encountered cloud properties. A proposed subset of flights deemed most suitable for Lagrangian modeling case studies is highlighted throughout. Such flights typically cover a greater fetch range, were better aligned with the MBL flow, and revisited sampled air masses, when key instruments were operational. Like many other flights, these flights often probed cloud formation and some cloud regime transitions. Surveying cloud properties from remote sensing and in-situ probes, we find a great range in cloud-top heights and a relatively large concentration of frozen hydrometeors, which suggest strong free tropospheric entrainment and secondary ice formation, respectively. Both processes are expected to leave marked signatures in cloud evolution, such as strongly ranging cloud droplet number concentrations that most cases show. ACTIVATE data combined with satellite retrievals can establish observational constraints for future model improvement work.
- Preprint
(12538 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3462', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024
reply
Review of Measurement Report: A survey of meteorological and cloud properties during ACTIVATE’s postfrontal flights and their suitability for Lagrangian studies by Tornow et al.
This measurement report is about marine cold-air outbreak flights during the ACTIVATE campaign. The authors report on the synoptic and meteorological conditions during flights, cloud properties, and choose specific flights of interest for Lagrangian modelling studies.
Overall, I think that this is a nice measurement report that is certainly helpful for anyone interested in choosing specific cases for a modelling study. My main concern is that that the selected cases all appear rather similar. Below I made some comments that the authors should consider before publication.
General Comments
- My largest concern is that it appears that all the ‘selected’ flights are fairly similar in terms of their characteristics, yet some potentially interesting cases such as 29 Jan 2021 and 28 Feb 2020 are not selected. Given that some of the selected cases have already been studied in published work, I think the report could benefit from some additional discussion about what makes each selected case unique and what would be interesting to study about them. At the moment it seems that no matter which of the selected cases is chosen one would get similar results while other cases with more different characteristics are left out. For instance, what would be the difference between choosing the 1 Mar 2020 and the 13 Mar 2022 flights, they seem very similar. Intentionally or not the authors might be steering the research to specific types of cases that then might end up being overrepresented in the literature, while other relevant cases are not studied.
- Although the authors mention that users can adjust the criteria, I think some justification or more description of how the authors arrived at the selected thresholds for the parameters in Table 1 is needed. Also were any other criteria considered by the authors that might be relevant, but were not included (such as surface fluxes)?
- 72-74: In the context of this report, it is important to mention what these studies have already done. At a later point it should also be mentioned which cases have been studied in which of these publications. Possibly add an indication in Figure 4?
Specific Comments
- 1, 29: The statements make it sound like marine cold-air outbreaks are purely a cloud phenomenon. Please consider revising: e.g., ‘often appearing as part of […]’
- 43-45: I am confused by this sentence since it seems to suggest that inhibition of vertical transport leads to the development of convection.
- 58: Are there any references or links for CAESAR already?
- 59: These field campaigns could be mentioned by name.
- 70: Is that the maximum or average MCAO index > 0 K for these 71 flights.
- Section 2.1: I am quite confused with some things here since notation does not appear to be consistent. Potential temperature is mentioned but derivatives are written as dT . Meridional wind speed changes are expressed as dv/dt which I interpret as the temporal change of the full wind (so it is neither the change in the meridional direction nor the change of the meridional wind). Please edit these things for clarity.
- 102: ‘connect […] as lines’ might be better.
- 131: How accurate is it to assume that all clouds are within the BL? How frequent was contamination by higher clouds and what impact did it have?
- 162-165: It would be good to add to Table 1 which of the qualities mentioned here each criteria in the table corresponds to.
- 182: Mention that you mean the identified front at the bottom of the image.
- 229: ‘All flights have at least three scores’ sounds confusing. Please consider revising wording: ‘fulfil at least three scores’.
- 277-278: Both of those flights were not selected. Why if they cover most criteria and the cloud transition. I think a 10 K threshold for the MCAO index is quite high. Was the value for these two cases close to 0 K?
- Fig. 4: NA and TRUE have the same symbol. Further, it is quite hard to figure out the correct line for each case. Possibly, ticks on the left and a line connecting the cloud distributions to the score sheet could be added? The caption should also mention what the shaded areas in the score sheet mean.
- For future submissions the authors should include all figures in the main text near where they are mentioned as instructed in the ACP submission guidelines.
Typographical:
- 73: Try to be consistent with MCAO vs CAO.
- 228: Fig. 4
- 312: ‘favorable to certain’
- Fig. 4 caption: ‘gray areas'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3462-RC1
Data sets
ACTIVATE GOES-16 Supplementary Data Products William L. Smith https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/soot/search
ACTIVATE King Air Aerosol and Cloud Remotely Sensed Data Brian Cairns, Snoore Stamnes, Bastiaan Van Diedenhoven, Jacek Chowdhary, Andrzej Wasilewski, Kirk Knobelspiesse, Chris Hostetler, Anthony Cook, Marta Fenn, Brian Collister, Jonathan Hair, and Marta Fenn https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/soot/search
ACTIVATE Falcon In Situ Cloud Data Christiane Voigt and Simon Kirschler https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/soot/search
Model code and software
Front Detection Malcom King, Aidan Heerdegen, Claire Carouge, and Sam Green https://github.com/coecms/frontdetection/tree/main
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
165 | 29 | 10 | 204 | 6 | 3 |
- HTML: 165
- PDF: 29
- XML: 10
- Total: 204
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1