Advances in CALIPSO (IIR) cirrus cloud property retrievals &ndash; Part 2: Global estimates of the fraction of cirrus clouds affected by homogeneous ice nucleation

Mitchell, David L.; Garnier, Anne

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814

Preprints

12 Dec 2024

| 12 Dec 2024

Advances in CALIPSO (IIR) cirrus cloud property retrievals – Part 2: Global estimates of the fraction of cirrus clouds affected by homogeneous ice nucleation

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Abstract. Cirrus clouds can form through two ice nucleation pathways (homo- and heterogeneous ice nucleation; henceforth hom and het) that result in very different cloud physical and radiative properties. While important to the climate system, they are poorly understood due to lack of knowledge on the relative roles of het and hom. This study differs from earlier relevant studies by estimating the relative radiative contribution of hom-affected cirrus clouds. Here, we employ new global retrievals (described in Part 1) of cirrus cloud ice particle number concentration, effective diameter (D_e), ice water content, shortwave extinction coefficient (α_ext), optical depth (τ), and cloud radiative temperature based on Imaging Infrared Radiometer (IIR) and CALIOP (Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization) co-located observations onboard CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation). Transition from het only to hom affected regimes are identified using α_ext and D_e. Over oceans outside the tropics in winter, the zonal fraction of hom affected cirrus generally ranges between 20 % and 35 %, with comparable contributions from in situ and liquid origin cirrus. Using τ distributions to establish a proxy for cloud net radiative effect (CRE), the τ-weighted fraction for hom affected cirrus over oceans outside the tropics during winter was > 50 %, indicating that hom cirrus play an important role in climate. Moreover, the climate intervention method known as cirrus cloud thinning could be an effective cooling method at high latitudes based on this τ-weighted hom fraction. A conceptual model of cirrus cloud characterization is proposed from these retrievals.

Received: 04 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 12 Dec 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 11420 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (11420 KB)

Supplement (1123 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Oct 2025

Advances in CALIPSO (IIR) cirrus cloud property retrievals – Part 2: Global estimates of the fraction of cirrus clouds affected by homogeneous ice nucleation

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 14099–14129, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-14099-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-14099-2025, 2025

Short summary

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3814', Blaž Gasparini, 06 Jan 2025
This manuscript analyzes cirrus cloud properties using a satellite retrieval product. It introduces a criterion for distinguishing between microphysical formation mechanisms of cirrus, often based on simple thermodynamic theory. Notably, the study not only estimates the fraction of homogeneously formed cirrus but also assesses their optical depth-weighted contribution, providing a more accurate estimate of their radiative and climatic relevance.
This manuscript has the potential to make an important contribution to our understanding of cirrus clouds. However, several issues undermine its impact, mainly related with the manuscript length, logic, and figure presentation.
Key comments:
1. Excessive manuscript length (particularly figure number)

The manuscript includes 27 figures, many with 8-12 subplots. This abundance, coupled with occasional topic detours, dilutes the key messages and diminishes the paper’s relevance for the community. Reducing the number of figures (or at least figure panels) while focusing on the paper's key results is recommended. For instance, tropical data could often be excluded, as it is not the main focus of the study.

To improve readability/simplify the manuscript, the authors could limit the main text’s analysis to a cloud optical depth range of 0.3 to 3, moving additional analysis to an appendix.
2. Colormap use

The manuscript frequently uses a broken colormap, which is (in my opinion) visually appealing but requires justification. If the switch between cold and warm colors aligns with a physically meaningful threshold, this should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, a perceptually uniform colormap should be used to ensure clarity and accessibility.
3. Seasonality figures

The current plots make it challenging for readers to discern seasonality in cirrus cloud properties. Key figures could represent seasonality more intuitively, for example, by showing relative anomalies from annual means.
4. Key science issue: Homogeneous freezing of solution droplets vs. homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets at homogeneous freezing temperature of water

The manuscript treats homogeneous ice nucleation in situ and homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets as equivalent, which they are not. This distinction is critical due to its implications for cirrus cloud thinning. While in situ nucleated homogeneous clouds are promising targets for seeding, current thinning methods cannot modify clouds forming at water’s freezing temperature. Although alternative modification strategies (e.g., convective invigoration or, possibly, the opposite, weakening; e.g. Varble et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13791-2023) could be developed, they fall outside the scope of this study.
5. Additional key comment - data accessibility

To enhance the utility of the dataset for the community, the authors could consider publishing their post-processed data in a user-friendly format, such as NetCDF following CF conventions. This would facilitate its use by climate modelers.

Specific comments:

I'm sorry if some comments repeat points already made in the key comments section.
Line 117 and Appendix A:

Why should such cases be rare? This is hardly justified. It certainly cannot be the case for cirrus originating from deep convection, where anvils spread far from the deep convective core, see Gasparini et al. 2018, Fig. 5 (10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0608.1). In any case, it's hard to discriminate the origin with only snapshot data, without any means of tracking the cloud evolution.
There are more studies that discriminate between liquid and in situ origin cirrus that could be mentioned, e.g. Wernli et al. 2016 (10.1002/2016GL068922), which uses a large statistical sample of clouds (relying on the imperfect reanalysis data, but at least with good statistics).
Line 175, but related to many of the figures:

Wouldn't it be enough to show only DJF and JJA in the main manuscript and the other seasons in the supplement?
Line 177:

Should be predicted by the GCM, but only in the sampled range of cloud optical depths. The clouds at COD<0.3 are very common, and while not as radiatively important, will contribute significantly to the mean ice cloud properties.
Line 188:

But also the agreement with ICNC
Figures 2-7:
If one does not pay attention and focus on some features, all subpanels generally look the same.

In general, I like the choice of the colormap. However, it is a discontinuous colormap with a very sharp transition. This can only be used if there's a reason for such a choice. Otherwise, the reader will see patterns that aren't real, but just a result of the sharp colormap discontinuity.

Section 3.1 is, in my opinion, not important to the main story of the paper. It could be moved to the Appendix, along with the corresponding figures (or at least parts of some of the figures).
Section 3.2/Figure 12:

If the relevant threshold is 30 ICNC/liter, then the discontinuity in the color map should be set at that level.
Section 3.2:

The use of extinction coefficient is not motivated
Line 320:

How is this equation derived? What is its source?
Line 347:

Does "theoretical method" refer to the formula in Verlinde? I'm not sure where it comes from, but it doesn't seem like a theoretical relationship, more like an empirical fit to data?
Lines 348-350:

The authors here assume that homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets is the dominant source of ice in convective plumes. It's hard to know how important it really is, but given that most convective clouds freeze at T of about -30°C, freezing of cloud droplets in the mixed-phase regime should be very important. There are quite a few references on this, although it's harder to find good information on deep convective clouds (e.g. Coopmann et al., 2020 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD032146; but at least in the tropics, most mixed-phase clouds are of convective origin).
Moreover, while associated with a large uncertainty, secondary ice production is thought to contribute substantially to ICNC in deep convective clouds, see e.g. Hu et al., 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0015.1)
Figure 14:

Not sure we need panels g-l, since they show the same as panels a-f.

Also, is there any physical significance to the discontinuity of the colormap?
Line 400:

We cannot know how active hom is, and in any case it would be homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets.
Figures 15 and 16:

Is there a physical meaning to the colormap boundary at 211 K?
Lines 440-441:

What if updrafts are the key difference between land and ocean?
Figure 17:

I see no difference between the dashed and solid lines, they seem to be parallel. Therefore, one of them could be removed from the plot for clarity.
Figure 20:

Why is there a seasonality in the parameterization for the Northern Hemisphere (discontinuously moving from 30° to 60°N) but not for the Southern Hemisphere?
Why is the word "corrected" in the title?
Figure 21:

Why do we need 4 temperature bins when the behavior seems to be pretty much the same in each of the bins (also, we are at figure 21 already, and it's starting to get harder to keep the focus).
Figure 22 is, in my opinion, the key figure of the manuscript, but unfortunately it gets lost a bit due to the large amount of information presented.
Another comment, similar to the one above: I don't think it's fair to lump together in situ cirrus and cirrus of liquid origin. Only in situ cirrus can be modified. So the readers might want to have numbers of hom vs. het for in situ cirrus only.
Section 4:

This is a valuable section, but there's a lot of speculation. I am very intrigued by the results presented in Figure 24. These should be verified in the future with other observational datasets and model studies to confirm or reject the proposed interpretation of cirrus cloud properties relative to updraft.
To increase the relevance of this section, the authors could compare their hypotheses with parcel model studies of cirrus, e.g. work by Bernd Kärcher, if possible.
Figure 25:

I assume that the INP number for Figure 25 and its description should be fixed. This should be stated explicitly.
Does the model in Figure 25 hold for all cirrus or only for in situ cirrus?

A caveat to this interpretation is that cirrus data could also be explained as cirrus at different stages of cloud evolution.
Section 5:

It seems a bit odd to have a separate section mentioning the otherwise very relevant study by Froyd et al., 2022.

I don't think the Froyd et al., 2022 study presented any ice residual measurements (unlike e.g. Cziczo et al., 2013).
Figures 26 and 27:

Figures 26 and 27 are very useful for the purpose of scientific presentations, but lack some more content to qualify for a proper scientific publication. For example, can we be sure that the clouds shown are at temperatures below the homogeneous freezing temperature of water?
In the best case, one could find a photo of a cirrus cloud with a coincident CALIPSO overpass and the analysis as done for the rest of the paper.
Lines 730-731:

Or, more physically, increase the vertical resolution of the model.

Or use some kind of subgrid cloud fraction in the vertical (similar to what is done in the horizontal dimension in coarse GCMs).

In any case, the pre-existing ice formulation tends to be less important when using high resolution models, and may become less important in future cirrus modeling studies.
Lines 754-755:

The study by Froyd et al. 2022 used only an idealized model setup (based on dust measurements, but the trajectories were based on reanalysis data).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Mitchell, 25 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3814', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Mitchell, 25 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3814', Blaž Gasparini, 06 Jan 2025
This manuscript analyzes cirrus cloud properties using a satellite retrieval product. It introduces a criterion for distinguishing between microphysical formation mechanisms of cirrus, often based on simple thermodynamic theory. Notably, the study not only estimates the fraction of homogeneously formed cirrus but also assesses their optical depth-weighted contribution, providing a more accurate estimate of their radiative and climatic relevance.
This manuscript has the potential to make an important contribution to our understanding of cirrus clouds. However, several issues undermine its impact, mainly related with the manuscript length, logic, and figure presentation.
Key comments:
1. Excessive manuscript length (particularly figure number)

The manuscript includes 27 figures, many with 8-12 subplots. This abundance, coupled with occasional topic detours, dilutes the key messages and diminishes the paper’s relevance for the community. Reducing the number of figures (or at least figure panels) while focusing on the paper's key results is recommended. For instance, tropical data could often be excluded, as it is not the main focus of the study.

To improve readability/simplify the manuscript, the authors could limit the main text’s analysis to a cloud optical depth range of 0.3 to 3, moving additional analysis to an appendix.
2. Colormap use

The manuscript frequently uses a broken colormap, which is (in my opinion) visually appealing but requires justification. If the switch between cold and warm colors aligns with a physically meaningful threshold, this should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, a perceptually uniform colormap should be used to ensure clarity and accessibility.
3. Seasonality figures

The current plots make it challenging for readers to discern seasonality in cirrus cloud properties. Key figures could represent seasonality more intuitively, for example, by showing relative anomalies from annual means.
4. Key science issue: Homogeneous freezing of solution droplets vs. homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets at homogeneous freezing temperature of water

The manuscript treats homogeneous ice nucleation in situ and homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets as equivalent, which they are not. This distinction is critical due to its implications for cirrus cloud thinning. While in situ nucleated homogeneous clouds are promising targets for seeding, current thinning methods cannot modify clouds forming at water’s freezing temperature. Although alternative modification strategies (e.g., convective invigoration or, possibly, the opposite, weakening; e.g. Varble et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13791-2023) could be developed, they fall outside the scope of this study.
5. Additional key comment - data accessibility

To enhance the utility of the dataset for the community, the authors could consider publishing their post-processed data in a user-friendly format, such as NetCDF following CF conventions. This would facilitate its use by climate modelers.

Specific comments:

I'm sorry if some comments repeat points already made in the key comments section.
Line 117 and Appendix A:

Why should such cases be rare? This is hardly justified. It certainly cannot be the case for cirrus originating from deep convection, where anvils spread far from the deep convective core, see Gasparini et al. 2018, Fig. 5 (10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0608.1). In any case, it's hard to discriminate the origin with only snapshot data, without any means of tracking the cloud evolution.
There are more studies that discriminate between liquid and in situ origin cirrus that could be mentioned, e.g. Wernli et al. 2016 (10.1002/2016GL068922), which uses a large statistical sample of clouds (relying on the imperfect reanalysis data, but at least with good statistics).
Line 175, but related to many of the figures:

Wouldn't it be enough to show only DJF and JJA in the main manuscript and the other seasons in the supplement?
Line 177:

Should be predicted by the GCM, but only in the sampled range of cloud optical depths. The clouds at COD<0.3 are very common, and while not as radiatively important, will contribute significantly to the mean ice cloud properties.
Line 188:

But also the agreement with ICNC
Figures 2-7:
If one does not pay attention and focus on some features, all subpanels generally look the same.

In general, I like the choice of the colormap. However, it is a discontinuous colormap with a very sharp transition. This can only be used if there's a reason for such a choice. Otherwise, the reader will see patterns that aren't real, but just a result of the sharp colormap discontinuity.

Section 3.1 is, in my opinion, not important to the main story of the paper. It could be moved to the Appendix, along with the corresponding figures (or at least parts of some of the figures).
Section 3.2/Figure 12:

If the relevant threshold is 30 ICNC/liter, then the discontinuity in the color map should be set at that level.
Section 3.2:

The use of extinction coefficient is not motivated
Line 320:

How is this equation derived? What is its source?
Line 347:

Does "theoretical method" refer to the formula in Verlinde? I'm not sure where it comes from, but it doesn't seem like a theoretical relationship, more like an empirical fit to data?
Lines 348-350:

The authors here assume that homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets is the dominant source of ice in convective plumes. It's hard to know how important it really is, but given that most convective clouds freeze at T of about -30°C, freezing of cloud droplets in the mixed-phase regime should be very important. There are quite a few references on this, although it's harder to find good information on deep convective clouds (e.g. Coopmann et al., 2020 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD032146; but at least in the tropics, most mixed-phase clouds are of convective origin).
Moreover, while associated with a large uncertainty, secondary ice production is thought to contribute substantially to ICNC in deep convective clouds, see e.g. Hu et al., 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0015.1)
Figure 14:

Not sure we need panels g-l, since they show the same as panels a-f.

Also, is there any physical significance to the discontinuity of the colormap?
Line 400:

We cannot know how active hom is, and in any case it would be homogeneous freezing of cloud droplets.
Figures 15 and 16:

Is there a physical meaning to the colormap boundary at 211 K?
Lines 440-441:

What if updrafts are the key difference between land and ocean?
Figure 17:

I see no difference between the dashed and solid lines, they seem to be parallel. Therefore, one of them could be removed from the plot for clarity.
Figure 20:

Why is there a seasonality in the parameterization for the Northern Hemisphere (discontinuously moving from 30° to 60°N) but not for the Southern Hemisphere?
Why is the word "corrected" in the title?
Figure 21:

Why do we need 4 temperature bins when the behavior seems to be pretty much the same in each of the bins (also, we are at figure 21 already, and it's starting to get harder to keep the focus).
Figure 22 is, in my opinion, the key figure of the manuscript, but unfortunately it gets lost a bit due to the large amount of information presented.
Another comment, similar to the one above: I don't think it's fair to lump together in situ cirrus and cirrus of liquid origin. Only in situ cirrus can be modified. So the readers might want to have numbers of hom vs. het for in situ cirrus only.
Section 4:

This is a valuable section, but there's a lot of speculation. I am very intrigued by the results presented in Figure 24. These should be verified in the future with other observational datasets and model studies to confirm or reject the proposed interpretation of cirrus cloud properties relative to updraft.
To increase the relevance of this section, the authors could compare their hypotheses with parcel model studies of cirrus, e.g. work by Bernd Kärcher, if possible.
Figure 25:

I assume that the INP number for Figure 25 and its description should be fixed. This should be stated explicitly.
Does the model in Figure 25 hold for all cirrus or only for in situ cirrus?

A caveat to this interpretation is that cirrus data could also be explained as cirrus at different stages of cloud evolution.
Section 5:

It seems a bit odd to have a separate section mentioning the otherwise very relevant study by Froyd et al., 2022.

I don't think the Froyd et al., 2022 study presented any ice residual measurements (unlike e.g. Cziczo et al., 2013).
Figures 26 and 27:

Figures 26 and 27 are very useful for the purpose of scientific presentations, but lack some more content to qualify for a proper scientific publication. For example, can we be sure that the clouds shown are at temperatures below the homogeneous freezing temperature of water?
In the best case, one could find a photo of a cirrus cloud with a coincident CALIPSO overpass and the analysis as done for the rest of the paper.
Lines 730-731:

Or, more physically, increase the vertical resolution of the model.

Or use some kind of subgrid cloud fraction in the vertical (similar to what is done in the horizontal dimension in coarse GCMs).

In any case, the pre-existing ice formulation tends to be less important when using high resolution models, and may become less important in future cirrus modeling studies.
Lines 754-755:

The study by Froyd et al. 2022 used only an idealized model setup (based on dust measurements, but the trajectories were based on reanalysis data).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Mitchell, 25 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3814', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Mitchell, 25 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3814/egusphere-2024-3814-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by David Mitchell on behalf of the Authors (25 May 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 May 2025) by Matthias Tesche

RR by Blaž Gasparini (11 Jun 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of Mitchell and Garnier, 2024, round 2

I would like to thank the authors for addressing many of the comments. In my opinion, the manuscript is now ready for publication. The authors did a better job of condensing their figures in the revised manuscript. I believe this is high-quality, innovative work of great scientific importance that deserves immediate publication in ACP.
However, due to its length and the large number of figures and subplots, I still believe that the broader community will not fully appreciate or understand the important science presented by the authors.

Please not that I still added a number of additional minor comments that the authors may want to consider including in the manuscript:

The two studies led by Tim Lüttmer that examine the origin of ice clouds by tracing each source of ice separately in a high-resolution model could be mentioned in the introduction (or other parts of the manuscript):

Lüttmer et al., 2025, https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/25/4505/2025/, see their Fig. 6 for the example of deep convection.
Lüttmer et al., 2025, in typesetting right now, preprint at: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-185/ for the example of a WB cirrus.

Appendix A, but maybe also lines 130–141 and other discussions related to the classification of WBC and in situ cirrus, particularly in the tropics:
In my opinion, Figure 7a shows that the WBC classification does not work very well in the tropics if its purpose is to highlight the microphysical origin of cirrus.
There are many samples to the right of the two theoretical curves. This is less problematic for other climate bands.
One option would be to state in the Appendix that discerning the microphysical origin is beyond the scope of such a simple classification, and to justify the use of the current classification scheme.

Figure 3:
The authors could cut the colormap at around 80 microns. This would provide greater contrast for the most commonly encountered ice crystal sizes. In its current form, it is difficult to spot large size differences.

Lines 270-272:
Isn't it simply the detrainment of ice formed at warmer temperatures at higher altitudes, which appears to violate the Clausius-Clapeyron limitations? I think it is incorrect to talk about 'moisture', as deep convection and freshly detrained clouds typically have a relative humidity (RH) of about 100%. What we really have there is the transport of ice from lower to higher levels.

Lines 286-300:
It would be useful to include the full derivation of the equations used in the appendix, particularly equations 2 and 4.
How does one derive equation 2 from the standard Clausius–Clapeyron equation? While this may sound obvious, it is still good practice to document it.

Similarly, an intermediate step could be included to clarify equation 4, e.g. by explicitly writing the ideal gas laws: Rho = e/RvT and Rho_(hom) = e_(hom)/RvT, Rho_(si) = e_(si)/RvT.
These derivations could go in the appendix.

Lines 324-326:
Because of close agreement, do we really need both versions in all the figures?

Section 3.3.1
I think the language could be simplified here.

Figure 13:
Is there a need for the Hom fraction axis and information in this figure? It's already plotted in Figure 12.

Also, it's tiring to fight through 12 subplots in 6 of the manuscript's figures. This clearly doesn't help convey your key messages, as it dilutes the message too much. Readers lose focus and motivation to continue.

Note on some of the figures:
It might be better to show NH-JJA and SH-DJF close to each other because we want to be able to compare summers and winters in both hemispheres.

Lines 575-576:
I think it's clear that homogeneous drop freezing isn't the main source of ice in WBC. The fact that most GCMs simulate this phenomenon is likely due to the biases in numerical models, especially low-resolution GCMs.
The Lüttmer et al., 2025 study (https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-185/) may be a more updated and trustworthy modeling reference.

Even after considering one of the key figures (Figure 16, specifically the COD-weighted part), there's still a lot of content in Figures 17 (again, 12 (!) subplots) and 18. I know that this is important for proposing the cirrus cloud formation and evolution idea and the Figure 19, but that could also be published e.g. in a letter format, as a separate publication.

Figure 20b should include a legend. Additionally, the cloud scene in the photo could be highlighted in the satellite image.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (14 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Jul 2025) by Matthias Tesche

AR by David Mitchell on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (24 Jul 2025) by Matthias Tesche

AR by David Mitchell on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2025)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Oct 2025

Advances in CALIPSO (IIR) cirrus cloud property retrievals – Part 2: Global estimates of the fraction of cirrus clouds affected by homogeneous ice nucleation

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 14099–14129, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-14099-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-14099-2025, 2025

Short summary

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3814-supplement

David L. Mitchell and Anne Garnier

Viewed

Total article views: 990 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
862	102	26	990	75	20	36

HTML: 862
PDF: 102
XML: 26
Total: 990
Supplement: 75
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 36

Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	118	39	7	164
Jan 2025	43	12	2	57
Feb 2025	28	6	3	37
Mar 2025	14	3	0	17
Apr 2025	20	6	2	28
May 2025	31	6	4	41
Jun 2025	38	4	6	48
Jul 2025	24	1	0	25
Aug 2025	101	12	0	113
Sep 2025	405	4	1	410
Oct 2025	40	9	1	50

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	118	39	7	164
Jan 2025	43	12	2	57
Feb 2025	28	6	3	37
Mar 2025	14	3	0	17
Apr 2025	20	6	2	28
May 2025	31	6	4	41
Jun 2025	38	4	6	48
Jul 2025	24	1	0	25
Aug 2025	101	12	0	113
Sep 2025	405	4	1	410
Oct 2025	40	9	1	50

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 963 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 963 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 30 Oct 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (11420 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Arguably the greatest knowledge gap in cirrus cloud research is the relative roles of homogeneous and heterogeneous ice nucleation in cirrus cloud formation. Since this depends on temperature, latitude, season, and topography, a satellite remote sensing method was developed to measure cirrus cloud properties. It was found that cirrus clouds strongly affected by homogeneous ice nucleation may account for over half of the overall cirrus cloud radiative effect during winter outside the tropics.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0