the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Radiative-dynamical interaction of tropical upper tropospheric clouds: sensitivity to ice cloud parameterizations
Abstract. Atmospheric heating gradients caused by upper tropospheric (UT) clouds, most abundant in the tropics, influence the atmospheric circulation which then affects patterns of precipitation. We use climate simulations to investigate how the radiative heating from UT clouds affects the large-scale circulation and how the circulation, in turn, influences precipitation. First, we present new observational metrics derived from satellite observations to demonstrate how much the simulated UT cloud properties (ice water path and radiative heating rates) depend on the parameterizations of UT cloud ice and microphysics (single-scattering properties and fall speed). We then examine the consequences of UT cloud – radiation interactions on the Hadley circulation by performing two sets of experiments with UT clouds transparent to radiation, differentiating between semi-transparent and opaque UT clouds. Using ensemble simulations, we are also able to separate immediate effects and feedbacks which build up subsequently. The distribution of UT clouds with respect to their optical depth is key in the sign of the dynamical effect: Semi-transparent cirrus weaken the Hadley circulation by decreasing the meridional heating gradients, whereas opaque UT clouds strengthen the circulation by concentrating radiative heating in the core of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Furthermore, the radiative heating of the opaque UT clouds is strong enough to considerably affect the precipitation through changes in moisture convergence which itself has been changed by the Hadley circulation.
- Preprint
(2231 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1206 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5049', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Oct 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-5049/egusphere-2026-5049-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-5049-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5049', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2026
Review of "Radiative-dynamical interaction of tropical upper tropospheric clouds: sensitivity to ice cloud parameterizations" by Stubenrauch et al.
The authors study the effect of ice cloud parametrization on the simulated upper-tropospheric (UT) clouds and the impact of radiative interactions of UT clouds on the tropical overturning circulation. To this end, they use the LMDz global atmosphere model. I in particular find the results that the circulation impact depends on the optical depth the clouds intriguing and novel. So overall I believe this paper can be a valuable contribution on the topic of how ice clouds affect the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere. My main concern with the paper is its style of presentation, however. For example, I find that the the introduction could be streamlined. I am in particular not sure about the parts on ECS, as the impact of UT clouds on circulation in my understanding does not work via surface warming but via warming and cooling of the UT atmosphere. Similar concerns apply to other parts of the paper. I therefore recommend major revision.
-----------------------------
Major comments:
Sect. 2.2: This section is very technical and hard to understand for those not familiar with LMDz. The authors should also explain the motivation behind their modifications and the cloud changes they expect from them.
Sect. 2.3: Similarly, the authors should state how they expect the fall speed changes to affect clouds. Building such intuition will help the reader later to follow the results of the simulations.
Sect. 3: Why are the simulations restricted to January and July? It would seem fairly easy to simulated the whole year 30 times (i.e, 30 years), and also the UT impact might be different in fall and spring.
Table 1: The simulations only span a subset of the parameter combinations that would seem possible? For example, fall speed is varied only in 1 simulation. What is the motivation for these, and why are not all combinations sampled?
Figures: The quality of the figures could and should be improved. This includes colors and line styles that are easier to distinguish, and legends that do not overlap with the plotted data (e.g., Fig. 5).
Sect. 3: The results in Figs. 5 and 6 are interesting, but the text stays at a descriptive level and so the results are hard to remember. Can the authors include explanations for the changes they find so that the reader can build some more understanding and intuition?
Sect. 4: The different impacts of semi-transparent and thick UT clouds on the Hadley cell strength are interesting to see. However, what is the dynamical explanation for these impacts? Note: I then saw that the mechanism comes later, but it might be worth considering to move that part forward.
L357: Could the non-agreement with Haslehner be explained by differences in the considered months. Haslehner used the whole year instead of January and July.
L380: I have doubts that the moisture convergence can be meaningfully captured by using the zonal-mean vertical velocity. There is a lot of zonal variations in the tropical overturning circulation.
Fig. 9: I find it difficult to follow the stability arguments, though they seem interesting. Maybe show a lat-p plot of temperature or theta, as the changes in stability might vary with height.
Conclusions: Much of the second part of the conclusions seems more a result and discussion than a conclusion. Maybe that part can find a better location in the manuscript?
Code and data availability: I miss statements on the model code of LMDz, run scripts and input data, and the LMDz output data.
-----------------------------
Minor comments
L33: Maybe a reference to the work of Michael Byrne on a narrowing of the ITCZ with warming is more fitting than to Mauritsen and Stevens?
L45: Why is this sentence in italic font?
L59: The expression "warm the TOA" does not make sense.
L87: Can you briefly explain the factor of 5/3 to the reader?
L91: remove "," after Baran et al. (2016)
L94: I cannot parse the sentence "However, it is ...".
Fig. 3: There is no legend for the grey dashed-dotted line. Or is that the CALIPSO-COD>0.3 line?
Fig. 4: If I am not mistaken, this is simply the cumulative probability. Why not say so in the text?
L290: Single sentence paragraph?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5049-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 285 | 160 | 67 | 512 | 101 | 69 | 75 |
- HTML: 285
- PDF: 160
- XML: 67
- Total: 512
- Supplement: 101
- BibTeX: 69
- EndNote: 75
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1