the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How rain shapes cloud-scale dynamics and mass flux in the trades
Abstract. Trade wind cumuli often precipitate, but the effect of rain processes on their dynamics and organization is still poorly understood. Previous observations of the vertical wind inside clouds were limited to non-precipitating conditions because the mean Doppler velocity from cloud radars is dominated by hydrometeor motion in precipitating clouds. Here, we retrieve the vertical air motion inside precipitating clouds by using the Doppler velocity spectrum from the ground-based Ka-band radars at the Barbados Cloud Observatory. We validate it against available lidar measurements. We combine the in-cloud radar-derived wind with lidar observations outside of clouds into a unified dataset spanning six years (2019–2025) at high (2s) resolution. We show that precipitating cumuli act as shallow squall lines, as predicted by recent large-eddy simulations. These clouds feature a narrow updraft at the gust front that develops up to cloud top. The wider precipitation downdraft is triggered slightly below cloud top, where the rain content is large enough, and extends down to the surface where it forms a cold pool. We show that updrafts and downdrafts contribute nearly equally to the cloud base mass flux. Their balance hinges on the downdraft intensity, likely controlled by microphysical processes. These observations can improve our understanding of tropical convection, shed light on the assumptions behind convective parameterizations and constrain cloud-resolving simulations.
Competing interests: Some authors are members of the editorial board of journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
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.- Preprint
(4470 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(10223 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1974', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1974', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jun 2026
This manuscripts explores the impact of precipitation on trade cumulus mass flux, updraft/downdraft structure, and cloud life cycle. The analysis retrieves vertical motion from Ka-band cloud radar Doppler spectra and Doppler lidar to provide continuous coverage of vertical velocity from the surface to cloud top. The long data record at the Barbados Cloud Observatory provides a large number of cloud samples that yield robust statistics and convincing composite life-cycles of different clouds (precipitating vs. non-precipitating).
The methodology is robust, and the life-cycle compositing is particularly interesting. The manuscript presentation is strong, with clear writing and well crafted figures.
I have a couple of more general criticisms, along with a number of specific comments, but I feel the manuscript would be suitable for publication after my comments are addressed.
Major/general comments
1. As much as I liked the methodology and analysis, I think the manuscript is a bit lacking in focus on what exactly was innovative. The life cycle composites are particularly compelling, but I didn’t see anything particularly new from them. I suspect the most innovative part is Sec. 4, which discusses vertical mass fluxes of updrafts and downdrafts in precipitating convection, which for these clouds has not been done comprehensively to this level. The conclusions and abstract should probably focus more on this innovative aspect of the work.
2. Although the list of references is extensive, the manuscript seems to ignore a lot of the literature on precipitating trade cumulus, particularly from the LES side. This includes the RICO intercomparison paper of van Zanten et al. (2011), which is the most obvious omission. But then there are a substantial number of papers about how precipitation from boundary-layer clouds promotes mesoscale organization (e.g., Wang and Feingold 2009a, b, and lots more). Obviously, not every paper should be cited, but a stronger engagement with past work would strengthen the manuscript.
van Zanten, M. C., and Coauthors, 2011: Controls on precipitation and cloudiness in simulations of trade-wind cumulus as observed during RICO. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 3, M06001, doi:10.1029/2011MS000056.
Wang, H., and G. Feingold, 2009a: Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part I: Impact of drizzle on the formation and evolution of open cells. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 3237–3256.
Wang, H., and G. Feingold, 2009b: Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part II: The microphysics and dynamics of the boundary region between open and closed cells. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 3257–3275.
3. The similarity to squall lines and mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) can only be pushed so far. Without actually showing the RKW vorticity/shear balance condition or doing an analysis like Helfer and Nuijens (JGR, 2021), it’s just speculation. And references to “stratiform anvil” and “mesoscale downdraft” as analogs to MCSs structure is even more speculative. Stratiform regions of MCSs have substantial microphysical differences compared to convective regions (i.e., they’re not just weakened cells), and mesoscale organization in boundary-layer clouds come about from different mechanisms than those that drive MCS dynamics (microphysical differences, differences in latent heating profiles between regions, perturbation pressure accelerations, and front-to-rear/rear-to-front mesoscale circulations). Cold-pool dynamics play a role, but the broader behavior involves other mechanisms. I guess I would just ask the authors to be a bit more careful about using the terms “squall line” and “MCS” without definitively establishing that they’re appropriate.
Minor/Specific comments
1. Page 7, Fig. 4. The references to the particular figure panels are in error. I assume this is from an earlier version of the figure with more panels.
2. Lines 143–152 and Fig. 5. I greatly struggled with this figure and the explanation, though I eventually understood. Why are cloud base and cloud top not denoted for precipitating clouds, as for non-precipitating clouds? Also, although it’s obvious in retrospect, I didn’t at first understand that the ‘all clouds’ line was literally the same line just plotted on both respective plots. Just for clarity, you might note this in the caption. There’s nothing really wrong here, but I suspect other readers might have similar challenges with the figure and explanation.
3. Lines 200–203, subsiding shells. You might cite McMichael et al. (2020), which seems especially relevant to the work.
McMichael, L.A., Yang, F., Marke, T., Löhnert, U., Mechem, D.B., Vogelmann, A.M., Sanchez, K., Tuononen, M. and Schween, J.H., 2020. Characterizing subsiding shells in shallow cumulus using Doppler lidar and large‐eddy simulation. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(18), p.e2020GL089699.
4. Lines 295–296. “We summarize these results with the very simplified tentative parameterization.” I think it’s a stretch to call this a parameterization, since it relies on reflectivity factor, which is a microphysical outcome of the convection itself. “Relationship” would be a more representative term than parameterization.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1974-RC2
Data sets
In-cloud vertical wind at the Barbados Cloud Observatory Florian Poydenot et al. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19221500
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 271 | 98 | 13 | 382 | 174 | 16 | 19 |
- HTML: 271
- PDF: 98
- XML: 13
- Total: 382
- Supplement: 174
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review comments: How rain shapes cloud-scale dynamics and mass flux in the trades by Poydenot et al.
This manuscript presents an observational analysis of cloud-scale dynamics and mass flux in precipitating trade shallow cumulus using six years of measurements from the Barbados Cloud Observatory (BCO). The authors derive vertical wind statistics in precipitating clouds and investigate how rain modifies the cloud-base mass flux and shallow-convective dynamics using Doppler velocity spectra from the ground-based radars and validate the results against lidar measurements. The study addresses an important question in shallow-convection research and provides valuable observational insights relevant for cloud parameterization and evaluation of LES. Findings about the effects of precipitation on coupled updraft-downdraft structures and cloud-base mass flux are very interesting and potentially important for the development of convection parameterizations. The manuscript is generally well written, and I believe it is suitable for publication after addressing the points below.
Specific comments: