the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Entrainment of Air from Rainy Surface Regions and its Implications for Bioaerosol Transport in Three Deep Convective Storm Morphologies
Abstract. The rain produced by thunderstorms has been observed to coincide spatially and temporally with enhanced near-surface concentrations of warm-temperature ice nucleating particles (INPs) of biological origin. However, the air in rainy regions is evaporatively cooled and negatively buoyant, and so it is unclear if it is entrained into its parent storms. Despite bioaerosols being highly ice-nucleation active, the microphysical influence that rain-aerosolized bioaerosols exert on storm processes is therefore not well-understood. We use the RAMS cloud-resolving model to simulate high-resolution archetypal representations of three deep convective storm morphologies: isolated deep convection, a squall line, and a supercell. We measure the degree of entrainment of rainy and non-rainy surface air into its parent storm using passive tracers, as well as calculating measures of each storm’s characteristics that influence the timing and degree of this entrainment. We find different degrees of entrainment between storm morphologies and between rainy and non-rainy surface air, with the squall line and supercell entraining significantly more rainy air than the isolated convective storm for all but the lightest rain. These differences owe to variation between the storms in their degrees of entrainment of surface air, their proportions of entrained surface air that originate in rainy regions, and their amount of rain produced per updraft mass. This study finds a specific and previously unrecognized source of air potentially containing highly ice-active aerosols which is entrained to varying degrees in different convective storm morphologies, and which is likely to exert different microphysical impacts on each type of storm.
- Preprint
(5694 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 07 Oct 2025)
-
EC1: 'Editor Comment on egusphere-2025-2968', Johannes Quaas, 15 Sep 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Charles Davis, 16 Sep 2025
reply
Dear Johannes, thank you for passing along this comment. We are looking into it.
Kind regards,
Charles
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2968-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Charles Davis, 16 Sep 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2968', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Sep 2025
reply
This manuscript uses the high-resolution RAMS cloud-resolving model to compare three types of deep convection (isolated deep convection, a squall line, and a supercell) in terms of how they entrain and transport “rain-sourced near-surface air.” Overall, the topic is novel, the model/diagnostic design is sound, and the results are interesting with potential implications for cloud–aerosol interactions. However, several important issues need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.
Major Issues
- The “rain-sourced” tracer is purely passive and only subject to advection and diffusion. It does not include wet deposition or particle-specific processes. Although the authors briefly acknowledge this limitation, there is no quantitative estimate or sensitivity test to assess how wet scavenging might reduce the actual amount of rain-sourced aerosol that could be lofted.
- Because the tracers ignore wet scavenging, the only real difference between “rain-sourced” and “fixed-source” tracers is whether they are released during rainfall or not. In essence, the study shows the effect of storm winds on air masses, rather than the specific role of rainfall. As such, the link to rain-induced aerosolization (and especially to bioaerosols/INPs) feels somewhat tenuous, and the extrapolation to microphysical or health impacts is weak in its current form.
- The main conclusion is that, if rain-induced bioaerosols exist, storms entrain them to different degrees. However, the paper does not show how much of the rain-sourced tracer actually reaches the upper troposphere (e.g., 8–12 km). This is critical for evaluating possible impacts on ice nucleation near cloud tops or for long-range transport. Prior studies have specifically used “lofting to 10 km” as a benchmark, but the manuscript provides no such metric.
Detail Issues
- The captions of Figures 7–9 should clearly state variable units, normalization methods, and any temporal smoothing or averaging. e.g., Fig. 9: maximum updraft at 5 km AGL smoothed over 15 min. Currently, some details appear only in the text, which makes the figures harder to interpret.
- Model data are saved every 5 minutes (Table 1). Since some entrainment/updraft processes may evolve on shorter timescales, please explain whether this temporal resolution is sufficient for your analysis.
- The y boundary of Squall line is cyclic, while the other cases are radical. Please discuss whether this introduces differences and why different boundaries are adopted.
- The assumption that aerosol release occurs once rainfall intensity passes certain thresholds should be supported by references.
- Can you provide at least a rough estimate of how the tracer concentrations could map onto INP enhancements, e.g., within the DeMott (2010) framework, and what impact this might have on ice nucleation rates?
- Table 1 units: The initial aerosol profile is listed with units of “mg⁻¹,” which seems inconsistent. Please correct the unit and confirm the magnitude.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2968-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,946 | 21 | 12 | 1,979 | 18 | 27 |
- HTML: 1,946
- PDF: 21
- XML: 12
- Total: 1,979
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
I was contacted by one reviewer who has an important comment that hampers review. Please address the comment in the Discussion as soon as possible.
Best regards
This manuscript presents interesting research on pathways of tracers ("biological aerosol particles") in atmospheric deep convection. However, section 3.2.1 has several obscure definitions starting from equation 1. Also, some terms, physical question answered and names in table 2 contradict each other. Could you please revise this whole section. I suggest that you first explain rigorously step by step how each physical quantity discussed in the paper was calculated in the model. Second, please make sure that the names and explanations are not misleading. The rest of the paper needs some editing accordingly.