Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in-situ and model data

Ohneiser, Kevin; Seifert, Patric; Schimmel, Willi; Senf, Fabian; Gaudek, Tom; Radenz, Martin; Teisseire, Audrey; Ettrichrätz, Veronika; Vogl, Teresa; Maherndl, Nina; Pfeifer, Nils; Henneberger, Jan; Miller, Anna J.; Omanovic, Nadja; Fuchs, Christopher; Zhang, Huiying; Ramelli, Fabiola; Spirig, Robert; Kötsche, Anton; Kalesse-Los, Heike; Maahn, Maximilian; Corden, Heather; Berne, Alexis; Hajipour, Majid; Griesche, Hannes; Hofer, Julian; Engelmann, Ronny; Skupin, Annett; Ansmann, Albert; Baars, Holger

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482

Preprints

18 Jun 2025

| 18 Jun 2025

Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in-situ and model data

Kevin Ohneiser, Patric Seifert, Willi Schimmel, Fabian Senf, Tom Gaudek, Martin Radenz, Audrey Teisseire, Veronika Ettrichrätz, Teresa Vogl, Nina Maherndl, Nils Pfeifer, Jan Henneberger, Anna J. Miller, Nadja Omanovic, Christopher Fuchs, Huiying Zhang, Fabiola Ramelli, Robert Spirig, Anton Kötsche, Heike Kalesse-Los, Maximilian Maahn, Heather Corden, Alexis Berne, Majid Hajipour, Hannes Griesche, Julian Hofer, Ronny Engelmann, Annett Skupin, Albert Ansmann, and Holger Baars

Abstract. A comprehensive approach to study the seeder-feeder mechanism in unprecedented detail from a combined remote-sensing, in-situ, and model perspective is shown. This publication aims at investigating the role of the interplay of a seeder-feeder cloud system and its influence on precipitation formation based on a case study from 8 Jan 2024 observed over the Swiss Plateau in Switzerland.

The case study offers an ideal setup for applying several advanced remote-sensing techniques and retrieval algorithms, including fall streak tracking, radar Doppler peak separation, dual-wavelength radar applications, a liquid detection retrieval, a riming retrieval, and an ice crystals shape retrieval. Results indicate that a large portion of the ice mass was rimed, which is attributed to the persistent coexistence of falling ice crystals and supercooled water within low-level supercooled liquid water layers. The interaction of the seeder and feeder clouds results in a significant precipitation enhancement. This has implications on the water cycle. It is also found that precipitation was significantly underestimated by the operational ICON-D2 model runs during the seeder-feeder process. Contrarily, during periods when the cloud system does not interact, the precipitation is significantly overestimated by the model.

This study aims at giving an overview from a remote-sensing, in-situ and model perspective on a seeder-feeder event in an unprecedented detail by exploiting a big set of retrievals applicable to big remote-sensing and in situ data. Utilizing different retrievals gives a consistent view on the seeder-feeder case study which is an important basis for future studies. It is demonstrated how the improved understanding of seeder-feeder interactions can contribute to enhancing weather forecast models, particularly in regions affected by persistent low-level supercooled stratus clouds.

How to cite. Ohneiser, K., Seifert, P., Schimmel, W., Senf, F., Gaudek, T., Radenz, M., Teisseire, A., Ettrichrätz, V., Vogl, T., Maherndl, N., Pfeifer, N., Henneberger, J., Miller, A. J., Omanovic, N., Fuchs, C., Zhang, H., Ramelli, F., Spirig, R., Kötsche, A., Kalesse-Los, H., Maahn, M., Corden, H., Berne, A., Hajipour, M., Griesche, H., Hofer, J., Engelmann, R., Skupin, A., Ansmann, A., and Baars, H.: Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in-situ and model data, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482, 2025.

Received: 27 May 2025 – Discussion started: 18 Jun 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, 36608 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 (36608 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

02 Dec 2025

Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in situ and model data

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 17363–17386, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025, 2025

Short summary

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2025

Please see attached supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2482/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2025

Please see attached supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2482/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Kevin Ohneiser on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Sep 2025) by Ivy Tan

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 Sep 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Sep 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I appreciate the work that the authors have put into revising this manuscript, and generally find it improved. Having said that, the model evaluation section, in my opinion, is still not worth including. The way that this evaluation is completed tells us nothing about the model’s abilities or about the reasons that the model and observations don’t fully agree in this case. To do so, it would be necessary to look at a significantly larger number of cases, ensure that the observational output is put into a similar format to the model output, and/or dive way more deeply into the details of the simulations to see *where* and *why* the model is not able to accurately re-create this one case. I still strongly believe that the ½ page, as written, is not worthy of the space it takes up in the manuscript.

At the very least, the authors should take time to understand why ICON-D2 is behaving the way it does. Saying it’s a 1-moment scheme and then speculating that maybe INPs have something to do with it is not only insufficient, it is not supported by the analysis. Why is the response of model ice riming reversed from observations when comparing seeded vs. unseeded clouds? What about the model’s parameterizations or the conditions forcing those parameterizations resulted in this outcome? What were the model thermodynamic conditions like relative to observations? Are any attempts made to compare apples to apples? What sort of averaging is applied to the observational data to help account for the fact that the model output is meant to represent a significantly larger area? How much temporal and spatial variability exists? In other words, if you were to install 1000 disdrometers across the spatial area covered by the model domain and take an average value of precipitation rates from those 1000 disdrometers at 1-minute intervals, would the peaks still be as large as they are? Or would the peaks basically be “averaged out” across the 1000 sensors due to shifts in timing? If the latter, then maybe the model isn’t so bad? What can you say about the fact that the ICON-D2 results do fall in between the different observations? Is the point that the variance is greater in the obs (if so, say so?). As it stands, the model results appear to fall in between the different observations. Also, the last statement, which speculates about increased condensate driving stronger riming – is there anything you can say about the number and size of droplets and the impacts that those have on riming rates?

I’m not trying to say that what is written here is necessarily wrong or that it goes against what the plots show. And, I agree that “model evaluation can be a central part of the case study.” However, there is no real insight here, and this isn’t really “model evaluation” as much as it is a comparison between localized disdrometer measurements and a value from the model output. All this section currently says is “based on the (poorly-constructed) comparison between obs and model output, there seem to be differences in this one individual case. I just don’t see this as useful and would still strongly advocate for the removal of this particular section.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Sep 2025) by Ivy Tan

AR by Kevin Ohneiser on behalf of the Authors (17 Oct 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

02 Dec 2025

Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in situ and model data

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 17363–17386, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025, 2025

Short summary

Viewed

Total article views: 1,045 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
942	75	28	1,045	26	49

HTML: 942
PDF: 75
XML: 28
Total: 1,045
BibTeX: 26
EndNote: 49

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	167	23	6	196
Jul 2025	110	9	9	128
Aug 2025	131	5	1	137
Sep 2025	441	10	4	455
Oct 2025	50	5	3	58
Nov 2025	42	23	5	70
Dec 2025	1	0	1

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	167	23	6	196
Jul 2025	110	9	9	128
Aug 2025	131	5	1	137
Sep 2025	441	10	4	455
Oct 2025	50	5	3	58
Nov 2025	42	23	5	70
Dec 2025	1	0	1

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,087 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,087 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 02 Dec 2025

Download

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

Preprint (36608 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study focuses on a seeder-feeder cloud system on 8 Jan 2024 in Eriswil, Switzerland. It is shown how the interaction of these cloud systems changes the cloud microphysical properties and the precipitation patterns. A big set of advanced remote-sensing techniques and retrieval algorithms are applied, so that a detailed view on the seeder-feeder cloud system is available. The gained knowledge can be used to improve weather models and weather forecasts.


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