Observed modulation of wintertime Western Arctic mixed-phase cloud properties by sea ice conditions, their long-term variabilities and trends

Saavedra Garfias, Pablo; Kalesse-Los, Heike

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327

Preprints

18 Jul 2025

| 18 Jul 2025

Observed modulation of wintertime Western Arctic mixed-phase cloud properties by sea ice conditions, their long-term variabilities and trends

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Abstract. To assess the long-term interaction between sea ice conditions and Arctic mixed-phase cloud (MPC) properties, fourteen winter seasons of observations from the North Slope of Alaska are analysed. MPC properties are set into context with sea ice conditions by determining the sea ice sectors which are most relevant to interact with the observed clouds. A conical sector of 6° and 50 km radius of upstream sea ice concentration (SIC) is considered based on the azimuth direction of the maximum water vapour transport (WVT) within the atmospheric boundary layer. The WVT height is used as indicator for the WVT interacting with the cloud, which is categorized as cloud-coupled or decoupled. The MPC properties are classiﬁed according to the presence of high or low pressure systems and analysed as a function of SIC. Results highlight which MPC properties do increase in magnitude as SIC decreases. The long-term time series evolution shows positive and negative trends in MPC properties, depending on the coupling status and the atmospheric pressure system. The study found statistically signiﬁcant positive trends suggesting an increase of sea ice-MPC coupled liquid water path (+35.0±0.9 g m^-2 decade^-1), cloud base height (+44.0±0.7 m decade^-1) and cloud top temperature (+2.2±0.7 K decade^-1) under low pressure weather systems. It has been revealed that the evolution of MPC properties presents cyclical characteristics and it is hypothesized that those are in phase with climate oscillations like ENSO or PDO. Although the results support this hypothesis, a direct causation is not trivial.

Received: 17 May 2025 – Discussion started: 18 Jul 2025

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, 6391 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 (6391 KB)

Supplement (1877 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

22 Oct 2026

Western Arctic wintertime mixed-phase clouds: Observed modulation by sea ice conditions, long-term variabilities and trends

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 14843–14865, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-14843-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-14843-2026, 2026

Short summary

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2327', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Aug 2025
Review of “Observed modulation of wintertime Western Arctic mixed-phase cloud properties by sea ice conditions, their long-term variabilities and trends” by Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los.
In this study, the authors provide observational evidence that Arctic cloud properties are strongly related to sea ice concentration (for coupled cases). The analysis also present the long-term trends of Arctic cloud properties, and reveals that the evolution of cloud properties presents cyclical characteristics. The results are interesting and the paper is generally well written, my specific and minor comments are listed below for the authors to consider.
Specific comments:
More physical explanations would be helpful to better understand the relationships between the cloud properties and SIC. For example, for coupled cases, LWP and IWP both increase as SIC decreases, but the cloud depth decreases as SIC decreases. That means a shallower cloud may have a higher LWP and IWP, which is hard to understand. Is this finding statistically robust, and is there an explanation? In addition, the IWP increases as SIC decreases, and the cloud top temperature also increases as SIC decreases, which suggests the IWP is higher in a warmer and shallower cloud. This is also difficult to understand and inconsistent with previous studies. Some explanation is necessary.

SIC is well correlated to temperature according to Fig. 1, while all the cloud properties are plotted as a function of SIC in Fig. 5. I’m wondering if all the cloud properties are really directly controlled by SIC, or are they actually controlled by temperature, especially for the cloud top temperature and lapse rate.

Minor comments:
A radius of 50 km and a conical sector of ±3 degrees is used for the upstream area. How are the results sensitive to the choice of radius and conical sector?

Figure 2c and d. The observed LWP is high at 2-4 UTC, but the cloud is mostly classified as ice.

Line 237. The argument of “plateau where the property levels off” is probably based on the fitted model. For many properties, there is no “plateau” according to the actual observational data.

Figure 5c and 4g. It is obvious that the model used to fit the data is not the best one for the decoupled cases in these two figures.

Line 290. If there is an inversion in the cloud layer, it may be inappropriate to calculate the lapse rate using the equation in Line 283. Have you tried to calculate the lapse rate using the temperatures at any two adjacent altitudes in the cloud, and then average over the entire cloud layer?

Another important macro-property is the cloud occurrence frequency. Is it affected by SIC?

Line 463. I think the analysis of long-term ice properties should be mentioned in the text in Section 3.2.3.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2327', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2025

In this manuscript, the authors analyze observations from the ARM North Slope of Alaska site and try to relate the local cloud observations to the sea ice concentration (SIC) upstream. While the research question could be of interest, the study is not performed in a rigorous way, at least not based on the information provided, and therefore, the results can not be trusted. Even if the analysis is correct, the way they are presented only provides an incremental step in the understanding of the Arctic system. The authors need to collaborate with experts on atmospheric processes in the boundary layer, clouds and the large-scale circulation to formulate relevant questions and design of the analysis.
The manuscript is full of uncertainties of what is actually done in the analyses, here, I only mention a few. First, Table 1 lists all datasets and the time resolution varies from 1 s to 1 day. In the following analysis, there is no information on what time resolution of the data is used. It seems like the data points in Figure 3 are monthly although the caption says weekly averages. Turning to Figure 2, what is the resolution of the data points that are behind this analysis? It is also very strange to have a so non-linear SIC division, does the distribution really support that? How can the confidence interval be so small when the bars show 50% of the data points? In this figure, I see no motivation for the chosen function – it could just as well be fitted with a straight line. To me it suggests that you have decided that the cloud parameters should be a function of the SIC and then you do your best to divide the dataset in such a way that you think that is what you see. The relationship is much more complex than that and the seasonality in the airmasses entering the Arctic over the season have a strong cycle, thus the temperature has a strong cycle and so has the LWP and IWP along with the SIC.
In conclusion, the study is not well motivated, nor well performed and the results, if they are correct, are not of interest to the community. Statements towards the end of the conclusion section illustrates my point. ”This study put into consideration empirical mathematical models derived from long-term observations as parameterization for the modelling of atmospheric boundary layer MPC ascribed to Arctic sea ice conditions. We suggest that the sea ice-atmospheric feedback processes that are represented in Arctic weather and climate models certainly should aim to mirror the complexity of relationships that the present study has uncovered. This implies the consideration of not only small-scale horizontal moist air mass transport that serves as physical link between sea ice openings and clouds downstream, but also weather patterns, atmospheric circulation processes, intra- and multi-decadal climate oscillations, and teleconnections between the Arctic and lower latitudes”

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-RC2
AC1: 'Answer to reviewers for manuscript egusphere-2025-2327', Pablo Saavedra Garfias, 19 Feb 2026

Dear Editor and reviewers,
We are thankful to both reviewers for their time to review our manuscript and their comments. We addressed every point and the replies are given in a point-by-point way in the attached PDF document and changes/additions in the document's difference PDF. Please note that the reviewers questions might refer to different Figure number in the latest manuscript version, thus we highlight this in our replies. This is specially true for Figs. 4 and later in the first submitted version.
Best regards,
Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-AC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (19 Feb 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Mar 2026) by Minghuai Wang

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Mar 2026)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Jun 2026) by Minghuai Wang

A major revision is needed.
1. The manuscript stills suffered numerical grammar errors/typos despite two rounds of revision. Here are just some of the examples (line numbers are for the revised version with track changes) (I raised a similar comment last time, and but numerical grammar errors remain).
page 10, line 224: "P considerable departures" --> "P considerably departure"
page 10, line 225, "In contrast" --> "In contrast, "
page 10, lines 240-241: there are two sentences.
page 11, line 296, "for decoupled cases however"
page 11, line 299: "are even strongly negative correlation"
page 16, line 337: "in the seaice"
page 17, line 354: "suffers of"
Please thoroughly check the manuscript and fixes all grammar errors.
2. Section 3.2 is not well designed and performed. For a short period as short as 14 years, many of the detailed trend analysis and results are not conclusive and add little to the literatures. For example, The authors attempt to fit cyclical climate periods—such as the 10.8-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and 5.4-year El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) harmonics—to a dataset that is only 14 years long. Suggest to significantly shorten Section 3.2.
3. The discussion section and the summary: The discussion is overly long, and part of it is somewhat redundant with the summary. suggest to shorten Section 3.3 and Section 4 and then combine them as one single section of "Discussion and Summary".
4. The overall writing of the manuscript needs substantial improvement. Some of the description of statistical parameters are difficult to follow. For example, it is still not clear to me how the median absolute deviation (MAD) is defined (line 239).

Hide

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (13 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Aug 2026) by Martina Krämer

Dear Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los,

please accept our apologies for the delay in processing the article, I have now taken over the handling of your article.

I looked at the entire manuscript review process and find that it is almost ready for final publication.
In accordance with the ACP’s author guidelines
(see https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html),
there are two things I like to recommend:

1) I would rephrase the title, this version sounds rather awkward:

'Observed modulation of wintertime Western Arctic mixed-phase cloud properties
by sea ice conditions, their long-term variabilities and trends'

Here is an alternative suggestion that I think is easier for readers to understand:

'Western Arctic wintertime mixed-phase clouds:
Observed modulation by sea ice conditions, long-term variabilities and trends'

2) Also according to the author guidelines, every article must include a 'Conclusions'
section with specific content (see the text from the website below). The section should be
self-explanatory, I would recommend starting with a brief outline of the study’s objective
within the context of atmospheric research.
Please note that the final point in the list below - 'Discuss what the results mean for our
understanding of the state and/or behaviour of the atmosphere and climate' is the most
important one that should be included in the 'Conclusions' section.
I suggest reworking the final chapter of the manuscript, ‘4 Discussion and Summary’, to
‘4 Conclusions’, which already includes many of the requirements.

Overall, I am pleased to accept the manuscript for publication, subject to minor
revisions (review by editor), and would ask you to submit a revised manuscript
that takes the two points mentioned above into account.

With best wishes,

Martina Krämer
Senior Editor 'Clouds & Precipitation', Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/editorial_board.html
Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz - Institute for Physics of the Atmosphere, Germany
.............................................................................................................................................................

Concluding section

Every article must have a final section where the overall advances are concisely summarized and put in context. Although the results section may include some discussion, a synthesis and interpretation must appear in the final section. ACP expects that the concluding section will normally include the following components, although not necessarily in separate paragraphs:

* Summary: Summarize the main results and relate them to the objectives, questions, or hypotheses of the study. The summary should include the main quantitative results.

* Synthesis/interpretation: Explain and interpret the results concisely to enable readers to make sense of them as a whole.

* Comparison and context: Compare the results with previous studies to put them in context. Explain consistencies, inconsistencies, and advances in knowledge.

* Caveats and limitations: State how these affect confidence in the overall results, and where future work is needed.

* Implications: Discuss what the results mean for our understanding of the state and/or behaviour of the atmosphere and climate, which is the main requirement for publication in ACP. The editor's acceptance/rejection decision will be strongly guided by this component of the concluding section.

.............................................................................................................................................................

Hide

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (03 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Sep 2026) by Martina Krämer

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (24 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2327', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Aug 2025
Review of “Observed modulation of wintertime Western Arctic mixed-phase cloud properties by sea ice conditions, their long-term variabilities and trends” by Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los.
In this study, the authors provide observational evidence that Arctic cloud properties are strongly related to sea ice concentration (for coupled cases). The analysis also present the long-term trends of Arctic cloud properties, and reveals that the evolution of cloud properties presents cyclical characteristics. The results are interesting and the paper is generally well written, my specific and minor comments are listed below for the authors to consider.
Specific comments:
More physical explanations would be helpful to better understand the relationships between the cloud properties and SIC. For example, for coupled cases, LWP and IWP both increase as SIC decreases, but the cloud depth decreases as SIC decreases. That means a shallower cloud may have a higher LWP and IWP, which is hard to understand. Is this finding statistically robust, and is there an explanation? In addition, the IWP increases as SIC decreases, and the cloud top temperature also increases as SIC decreases, which suggests the IWP is higher in a warmer and shallower cloud. This is also difficult to understand and inconsistent with previous studies. Some explanation is necessary.

SIC is well correlated to temperature according to Fig. 1, while all the cloud properties are plotted as a function of SIC in Fig. 5. I’m wondering if all the cloud properties are really directly controlled by SIC, or are they actually controlled by temperature, especially for the cloud top temperature and lapse rate.

Minor comments:
A radius of 50 km and a conical sector of ±3 degrees is used for the upstream area. How are the results sensitive to the choice of radius and conical sector?

Figure 2c and d. The observed LWP is high at 2-4 UTC, but the cloud is mostly classified as ice.

Line 237. The argument of “plateau where the property levels off” is probably based on the fitted model. For many properties, there is no “plateau” according to the actual observational data.

Figure 5c and 4g. It is obvious that the model used to fit the data is not the best one for the decoupled cases in these two figures.

Line 290. If there is an inversion in the cloud layer, it may be inappropriate to calculate the lapse rate using the equation in Line 283. Have you tried to calculate the lapse rate using the temperatures at any two adjacent altitudes in the cloud, and then average over the entire cloud layer?

Another important macro-property is the cloud occurrence frequency. Is it affected by SIC?

Line 463. I think the analysis of long-term ice properties should be mentioned in the text in Section 3.2.3.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2327', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2025

In this manuscript, the authors analyze observations from the ARM North Slope of Alaska site and try to relate the local cloud observations to the sea ice concentration (SIC) upstream. While the research question could be of interest, the study is not performed in a rigorous way, at least not based on the information provided, and therefore, the results can not be trusted. Even if the analysis is correct, the way they are presented only provides an incremental step in the understanding of the Arctic system. The authors need to collaborate with experts on atmospheric processes in the boundary layer, clouds and the large-scale circulation to formulate relevant questions and design of the analysis.
The manuscript is full of uncertainties of what is actually done in the analyses, here, I only mention a few. First, Table 1 lists all datasets and the time resolution varies from 1 s to 1 day. In the following analysis, there is no information on what time resolution of the data is used. It seems like the data points in Figure 3 are monthly although the caption says weekly averages. Turning to Figure 2, what is the resolution of the data points that are behind this analysis? It is also very strange to have a so non-linear SIC division, does the distribution really support that? How can the confidence interval be so small when the bars show 50% of the data points? In this figure, I see no motivation for the chosen function – it could just as well be fitted with a straight line. To me it suggests that you have decided that the cloud parameters should be a function of the SIC and then you do your best to divide the dataset in such a way that you think that is what you see. The relationship is much more complex than that and the seasonality in the airmasses entering the Arctic over the season have a strong cycle, thus the temperature has a strong cycle and so has the LWP and IWP along with the SIC.
In conclusion, the study is not well motivated, nor well performed and the results, if they are correct, are not of interest to the community. Statements towards the end of the conclusion section illustrates my point. ”This study put into consideration empirical mathematical models derived from long-term observations as parameterization for the modelling of atmospheric boundary layer MPC ascribed to Arctic sea ice conditions. We suggest that the sea ice-atmospheric feedback processes that are represented in Arctic weather and climate models certainly should aim to mirror the complexity of relationships that the present study has uncovered. This implies the consideration of not only small-scale horizontal moist air mass transport that serves as physical link between sea ice openings and clouds downstream, but also weather patterns, atmospheric circulation processes, intra- and multi-decadal climate oscillations, and teleconnections between the Arctic and lower latitudes”

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-RC2
AC1: 'Answer to reviewers for manuscript egusphere-2025-2327', Pablo Saavedra Garfias, 19 Feb 2026

Dear Editor and reviewers,
We are thankful to both reviewers for their time to review our manuscript and their comments. We addressed every point and the replies are given in a point-by-point way in the attached PDF document and changes/additions in the document's difference PDF. Please note that the reviewers questions might refer to different Figure number in the latest manuscript version, thus we highlight this in our replies. This is specially true for Figs. 4 and later in the first submitted version.
Best regards,
Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-AC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (19 Feb 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Mar 2026) by Minghuai Wang

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Mar 2026)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Jun 2026) by Minghuai Wang

Hide

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (13 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Aug 2026) by Martina Krämer

Hide

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (03 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Sep 2026) by Martina Krämer

AR by Pablo Saavedra Garfias on behalf of the Authors (24 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Oct 2026

Western Arctic wintertime mixed-phase clouds: Observed modulation by sea ice conditions, long-term variabilities and trends

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 14843–14865, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-14843-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-14843-2026, 2026

Short summary

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2327-supplement

Pablo Saavedra Garfias and Heike Kalesse-Los

Viewed

Total article views: 7,251 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
5,815	1,124	312	7,251	490	308	393

HTML: 5,815
PDF: 1,124
XML: 312
Total: 7,251
Supplement: 490
BibTeX: 308
EndNote: 393

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Jul 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2025	560	60	30	650
Aug 2025	775	229	10	1,014
Sep 2025	2,609	69	42	2,720
Oct 2025	329	65	25	419
Nov 2025	271	120	20	411
Dec 2025	180	100	25	305
Jan 2026	417	115	30	562
Feb 2026	203	118	39	360
Mar 2026	237	102	54	393
Apr 2026	70	39	1	110
May 2026	38	19	3	60
Jun 2026	8	5	1	14
Jul 2026	15	10	2	27
Aug 2026	10	10	5	25
Sep 2026	33	23	11	67
Oct 2026	44	28	13	85
Nov 2026	16	12	1	29

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Jul 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2025	560	60	30	650
Aug 2025	775	229	10	1,014
Sep 2025	2,609	69	42	2,720
Oct 2025	329	65	25	419
Nov 2025	271	120	20	411
Dec 2025	180	100	25	305
Jan 2026	417	115	30	562
Feb 2026	203	118	39	360
Mar 2026	237	102	54	393
Apr 2026	70	39	1	110
May 2026	38	19	3	60
Jun 2026	8	5	1	14
Jul 2026	15	10	2	27
Aug 2026	10	10	5	25
Sep 2026	33	23	11	67
Oct 2026	44	28	13	85
Nov 2026	16	12	1	29

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 7,227 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 7,227 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 11 Nov 2026

Download

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

Preprint (6391 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Arctic low level mixed-phase clouds were analysed from 14 years of wintertime observations from the North Slope of Alaska. We found that Arctic cloud physical properties are in correlation with changes in upwind sea ice. The cloud liquid and ice water content increases as sea ice decreases, although not at the same magnitude. Moreover, we uncovered that cloud properties have oscillation properties along the years that resemble climate indicators like El Niño Southern Oscillation among others.


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