the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating simulations of ship tracks in a high-resolution model
Abstract. Clouds, and in particular their interactions with aerosols, remain a major source of uncertainty in climate projections, due to the wide range of scales over which cloud processes act on. This uncertainty limits our capability to simulate potential solar radiation management strategies, such as marine cloud brightening (MCB). A good natural analogue for investigating MCB is analysis of ship tracks, as they mimic the intended effect and allow us to investigate time evolving aerosol perturbations. In this study, we model a real case of ship tracks, and evaluate model performance through comparisons with satellite observations. We evaluate our model simulations against three criteria, in order to ascertain whether this model is suitable for simulating MCB accurately. Our findings highlight a key deficiency in activation parameterisations when simulating high aerosol concentrations – such as those expected in MCB scenarios. While the model can replicate the mean cloud properties within ship tracks, it struggles to capture their temporal evolution. Specifically, in precipitating clouds, enhancements in droplet number concentration (Nd) and liquid water path (LWP) are overestimated and persist too long. This discrepancy between model and observations is linked to excessive model sensitivity to aerosol loading in precipitating conditions, leading to unrealistically easy suppression of drizzle, and ultimately resulting in simulated ship tracks which overestimate the cooling effect in these cases. We identify scenarios in which current formulations of parameterisations are not suitable for use in simulating high-concentration aerosol perturbations, such as MCB, and scenarios in which models are more capable.
- Preprint
(12509 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(770 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Oct 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3877', Jeff Haley, 08 Sep 2025
reply
In Figure 7, the graphs i, j, k, & l are confusing and appear to be misleading. The blue lines show values of observations over a span of 15 hours. They appear to show about 15 different values over those 15 hours, about one each hour. It appears that the data being graphed comes from the MODIS instruments which, during daylight, pass overhead at 10:30 sun time and 13:30 sun time, allowing a total of two data points per sunlit day. Why does each graph show 15 data points rather than 2? Shouldn't the actual data from 10:30 and 1:30 be shown as dots or Xs?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3877-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Tippett, 08 Sep 2025
reply
Thank you for your comment.
As is described in Section 2.6 (line 189-193), we obtain the hourly resolved data for Figures 6, 7 and 8 through the use of the distance along a ship track as a time axis. Ship positions (from hourly AIS data) are advected in ERA5 wind fields, such that (i) we can predict the location of a ship track (where the perturbed cloud ends up), and (ii) each segment of the ship track has the associated time that the ship passed through (the time of the aerosol perturbation). This allows us to consider the length of a ship track as a time axis with hourly resolution (as has been done in previous studies such as Gryspeerdt et al. (2021), Manshausen et al. (2022, 2023), and Tippett et al. (2024), and therefore infer information about the time evolution of an aerosol perturbation even in snapshot satellite imagery. From this we also obtain the distance from the centre of the track for each of our MODIS pixels, allowing the 2D composites of Figures 6,7 and 8 to be generated.
This point shall be made more clear within the methodology for the final revised paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3877-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jeff Haley, 08 Sep 2025
reply
I understand how you use available ship location data to have an estimate of where the ship is at each hourly point in time.
I do not understand how you interpolate from two data observations by satellite to estimate once per hour over 15 hours the numbers of droplets or amount of water in the path under the satellite and show any change other than linear of a straight line intersecting the two data points.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3877-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Anna Tippett, 09 Sep 2025
reply
Ship location data is used to predict where the clouds impacted by the ships end up at later times, not just to estimate where the ship is located at different times.
Attached is an example of this for a single ship track in a single MODIS snapshot. We plot the historical ship locations (up to 15 hours before the MODIS image), which are advected over time in the wind fields to obtain the resultant ship track locations (with the age of the aerosol perturbation). These points on the ship track are essentially the time since that specific cloud had the ship sail beneath it. Therefore, the distance along the ship track becomes the time axis for the Figures of this work, since we can associate a 'time since ship' to each point along the track.
There is no interpolation between two observations by satellite, and this methodology is applicable even with a single satellite observation - the length of the ship track provides the time axis.-
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Jeff Haley, 09 Sep 2025
reply
Yes, you have a good estimate of where the plume is at each point in time, but how do you get 16 estimates for LWP, one every hour, and 16 estimates for count of particles, one every hour? The label on the graph is "Observations". How did you make 16 observations for N and for LWP? I am guessing that you had two actual observations for each during the 15 hours. How did you turn those two actual observations into 16 different values? And, wouldn't it add clarity if you marked on each graph those two points when you had actual observations, the points at 10:30 sun time and at 13:30 sun time?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3877-CC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Anna Tippett, 09 Sep 2025
reply
The time axis is not real time. It is the `time along ship track', which is effectively the distance along the ship track from the head (where the ship currently is), to the end (where the oldest aerosol perturbation is) - a figure of this is provided in the previous comment. Therefore, even in a single MODIS snapshot, we still obtain 15 hourly values along the length of the ship track. The time of the MODIS overpass is not related to the x-axis of these figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3877-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Anna Tippett, 09 Sep 2025
reply
-
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Jeff Haley, 09 Sep 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Anna Tippett, 09 Sep 2025
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jeff Haley, 08 Sep 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Tippett, 08 Sep 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,767 | 43 | 12 | 1,822 | 20 | 10 | 16 |
- HTML: 1,767
- PDF: 43
- XML: 12
- Total: 1,822
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1