the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Interplay between aerosol and updraft velocity in Large Eddy Simulations of marine stratocumulus clouds
Abstract. Marine stratocumulus are low-level clouds with a great impact on the Earth’s energy balance. The present study is focused on understanding the interplay between aerosols and updraft velocity in marine stratocumulus clouds using Large Eddy Simulations (LES) over a 6.4×6.4 km2 domain size with a double-moment aerosol-cloud microphysics scheme. A first series of experiments with aerosol concentrations varying from pristine to polluted conditions shows a transition from aerosol-limited to updraft-limited regime. The higher aerosol concentration in polluted conditions leads to the suppression of precipitation due to a larger number of cloud droplets, suggesting a transition from an open-cell to a closed-cell structure. A second series of experiments, where updraft velocity is enhanced by increasing latent heat flux, shows an increase in vertical velocity variance and a higher cloud droplet number, indicating enhanced convective activity with stronger updrafts and downdrafts. Cloud susceptibility is equal to 1 for both experiments at lower aerosol concentration, clearly indicating the presence of an aerosol-limited regime where updraft velocity has little impact. At higher aerosol concentration, cloud susceptibility is higher for stronger updrafts in the second series of experiments, indicating that stronger updrafts can shift regime from updraft-limited to aerosol-limited. Stronger updrafts also influence aerosol availability and activation, blurring the distinction between aerosol-limited and updraft-limited regimes because of the key role updraft velocity plays in regulating aerosol activation. Overall, the study demonstrates that LES is capable of reproducing both regimes as well as the transition between them.
- Preprint
(2463 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Jan 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5711', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5711', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2026
reply
This study shows that the MONC LES model can simulate stratocumulus clouds in both aerosol-limited regime and updraft-limited regime. However, the aerosol effects on stratocumulus cloud droplet number concentration, LWP, and also cloud morphology shown in this study are pretty much similar to results in previous studies. It is also known from previous studies that more aerosol would be activated to cloud droplets, and clouds would have higher susceptibility, when updraft velocity is stronger. Therefore, this study actually does not show much new findings regarding the aerosol effects on stratocumulus clouds. Nevertheless, the manuscript shows that the model has the ability to simulate cloud susceptibility in different regimes, and the conditions under which the regime can shift from aerosol-limited to updraft-limited or from updraft-limited to aerosol-limited. I think the manuscript provides very clear results on the conditions for these transitions for the simulated stratocumulus case. Below are some suggested revisions to improve the manuscript:
1. The values of cloud susceptibility parameter beta shown in lines 259-263 are very useful. These values can give us an idea when aerosol effect is very important and when it is not so important. I would suggest these values of susceptibility parameter are presented in the Abstract. A quantitative description of susceptibility parameter can help us understand the arguments in the Abstract. In addition, is it possible to use the susceptibility parameter to set a criterion for determining whether it is aerosol-limited or updraft limited?
2. It is quite interesting to discuss the open-cell and closed-cell structures for AERO in Figure 3. But the manuscript does not seem to provide enough discussions on this issue for BRATIO. For the AERO experiments, we can see that cloud morphology changes from open-cell to closed-cell structure as aerosol concentration increases. My question is: does the open-cell structure belongs to aerosol-limited regime, whereas the closed-cell structure belongs to the updraft-limited regime? If so, do you find the transition of cloud morphology to more open-cell structure in the BRATIO experiments (since BRATIO experiments show shift toward the aerosol-limited regime)? I can see from Figure 2 that BRATIO experiments have LWP fields that are more inhomogeneous than AERO. It would be very interesting to see the cloud cluster size for BRATIO and see if there is transition to more open-cell structure.
3. Discussions in lines 288-318 are very misleading. I agree that cloud droplet number and updraft velocity do seem to have a positive correlation in each experiment. But if we compare all the AERO experiments, from A-65 to A-10000, it is seen that cloud droplet number increases significantly (Figure 4c), but updraft velocity does not change very much (Figure 4d). The updraft velocity may increase a little due to enhanced evaporation and turbulence when aerosol concentration is higher, but the increase is not significant. The writing of lines 288-290 may also need to be revised. Here “the coupling (between aerosols and updraft velocity)” is used. This could be confused with the “interplay between aerosol and updraft velocity” as described in the title. I believe “coupling” and “interplay” in this manuscript means completely different issues. But because these two words have similar meanings, I strongly suggest revising the writing in lines 288-290.
4. Figure 8 and Figure 9, what is the unit of density? Please explain why the clouds with high cloud base have high number concentration at low updraft. It is also not very easy to understand why some clouds would have high cloud base in a stratocumulus cloud case. I would imagine the cloud base is more uniform. Are these clouds with high cloud base related to open cells?
5. The title of 3.1 should be changed to “transition from aerosol-limited regime to updraft-limited regime”, because the transition is discussed in this section.
6. Panels in Figure 4 better use same horizontal scales as panels in Figure 6.
7. Lines 194-196, “attributed to enhanced radiative cooling near cloud top”, please provide evidence for this or provide a reference for this conclusion.
8. Line 212. “The strength of updrafts within an air parcel”, better be changed to “the strength of updrafts of an air parcel”, because an air parcel moves with an updraft.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5711-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 60 | 13 | 252 | 35 | 23 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 60
- XML: 13
- Total: 252
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see the attached file for the review.