the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Apr 2025
Assessing glaciogenic seeding impacts in Australia’s Snowy Mountains: an ensemble modeling approach
Abstract. Winter precipitation over Australia's Snowy Mountains provide crucial water resource in the region. Cloud seeding has been operational to enhance snowfall and water storage. This study presents an ensemble simulations to assess cloud seeding impacts across diverse meteorological conditions and evaluate associated model uncertainties. Nine seeding cases from 2016 to 2019 were simulated, with 18 ensemble members varying initialization datasets and model configurations. Two main storm categories were studied (convective vs stratiform). Results demonstrate that simulated seeding efficacy highly depends on meteorological conditions. Stratiform cases exhibited consistent precipitation enhancement, while convective cases showed reductions and downwind shifts of precipitation. Significantly inter-member variability was also observed. Notably, BARRA-driven simulations show better representation in supercooled liquid water. Aerosol and PBL scheme variations also contributed to ensemble spread. The findings demonstrate the value of ensemble modeling for reliable cloud seeding assessment. Key areas are also identified for future investigations in winter cloud seeding.
-
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
(10348 KB)
-
Supplement
(3484 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10348 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3484 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1434', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
We appreciate both reviewers’ time and efforts in providing the careful and constructive comments that help improve the quality of our manuscript. We have created a point-by-point response in the attached document with the reviewer’s comments in black and our response in blue.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1434', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
Title: Assessing glaciogenic seeding impacts in Australia’s Snowy Mountains: an ensemble modeling approach
Authors: Chen et al.
The manuscript examines nine seeding cases using an ensemble modeling approach. The ensemble is composed of 18 members using different large-scale forcing data, planetary boundary layer schemes, ice nucleation and aerosol schemes. The nine cases investigated are divided into those with convective and stratiform precipitation. The authors found that depending on the precipitation regime, the seeding impacted the precipitation differently. The manuscript is novel, well-structured and well-written. I have no major comments. Minor comments are given below.
Minor comments:
- Line 8: define BARRA
- Line 9: define PBL
- Line 19: the degree Celsius symbol should not be in italics.
- Line 130: It is confusing to have a sentence starting with “one of our goal…” in the ensemble design. Is this the goal of the study? The authors should rephrase the sentence for clarity.
- Line 154: Add a space between “)” and “to”.
- Line 247: The authors describe the figures in the text, which is not necessary. For example, the authors can delete “see color circles” because it is already in the figure caption. The authors should correct throughout the manuscript.
- Line 272: The units “gigalitres” is not needed since that it appears in the figure caption.
- Lines 297-321: This paragraph is long and is mixing results and discussion. The authors should divide it in a few paragraphs, based on the topic. For example, lines 297-300 read more like a discussion about the processes associated with the downwind shift while the sentence starting with “Furthermore” on line 300 seemed to be some results another numerical noise.
- Lines 347-348: The first sentence is incomplete and unclear and should be improved.
- Line 377: In the sentence starting with “The abundant supercooled liquid…”, “supercooled liquid” should be replaced by the acronym “SLW”.
- Line 423: What does “negative seeding” mean?
- Line 426: Should “rimed water” be replaced by “SLW”?
- Line 440: Which numerical study are you referring to? It should clarify.
- Conclusion: The authors should divide clearly the conclusion of the study and the future work. For example, the last paragraph (Line 452) reads as future work and should probably be combined with the previous one.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1434-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
We appreciate both reviewers’ time and efforts in providing the careful and constructive comments that help improve the quality of our manuscript. We have created a point-by-point response in the attached document with the reviewer’s comments in black and our response in blue.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1434', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
We appreciate both reviewers’ time and efforts in providing the careful and constructive comments that help improve the quality of our manuscript. We have created a point-by-point response in the attached document with the reviewer’s comments in black and our response in blue.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1434', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
Title: Assessing glaciogenic seeding impacts in Australia’s Snowy Mountains: an ensemble modeling approach
Authors: Chen et al.
The manuscript examines nine seeding cases using an ensemble modeling approach. The ensemble is composed of 18 members using different large-scale forcing data, planetary boundary layer schemes, ice nucleation and aerosol schemes. The nine cases investigated are divided into those with convective and stratiform precipitation. The authors found that depending on the precipitation regime, the seeding impacted the precipitation differently. The manuscript is novel, well-structured and well-written. I have no major comments. Minor comments are given below.
Minor comments:
- Line 8: define BARRA
- Line 9: define PBL
- Line 19: the degree Celsius symbol should not be in italics.
- Line 130: It is confusing to have a sentence starting with “one of our goal…” in the ensemble design. Is this the goal of the study? The authors should rephrase the sentence for clarity.
- Line 154: Add a space between “)” and “to”.
- Line 247: The authors describe the figures in the text, which is not necessary. For example, the authors can delete “see color circles” because it is already in the figure caption. The authors should correct throughout the manuscript.
- Line 272: The units “gigalitres” is not needed since that it appears in the figure caption.
- Lines 297-321: This paragraph is long and is mixing results and discussion. The authors should divide it in a few paragraphs, based on the topic. For example, lines 297-300 read more like a discussion about the processes associated with the downwind shift while the sentence starting with “Furthermore” on line 300 seemed to be some results another numerical noise.
- Lines 347-348: The first sentence is incomplete and unclear and should be improved.
- Line 377: In the sentence starting with “The abundant supercooled liquid…”, “supercooled liquid” should be replaced by the acronym “SLW”.
- Line 423: What does “negative seeding” mean?
- Line 426: Should “rimed water” be replaced by “SLW”?
- Line 440: Which numerical study are you referring to? It should clarify.
- Conclusion: The authors should divide clearly the conclusion of the study and the future work. For example, the last paragraph (Line 452) reads as future work and should probably be combined with the previous one.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1434-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sisi Chen, 09 Jun 2025
We appreciate both reviewers’ time and efforts in providing the careful and constructive comments that help improve the quality of our manuscript. We have created a point-by-point response in the attached document with the reviewer’s comments in black and our response in blue.
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 178 | 42 | 17 | 237 | 21 | 9 | 13 |
- HTML: 178
- PDF: 42
- XML: 17
- Total: 237
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lulin Xue
Sarah A. Tessendorf
Thomas Chubb
Andrew Peace
Suzanne Kenyon
Johanna Speirs
Jamie Wolff
Bill Petzke
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10348 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3484 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper