English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The condensation and evaporation rates predicted by binand bulk microphysics schemes in the same model framework are compared in astatistical way using simulations of non-precipitating shallow cumulusclouds. Despite other fundamental disparities between the bin and bulkcondensation parameterizations, the differences in condensation rates arepredominantly explained by accounting for the width of the cloud dropletsize distributions simulated by the bin scheme. While the bin scheme doesnot always predict a cloud droplet size distribution that is wellrepresented by a gamma distribution function (which is assumed by bulkschemes), this fact appears to be of secondary importance for explaining whythe two schemes predict different condensation and evaporation rates. Thewidth of the cloud droplet size is not well constrained by observations, andthus it is difficult to know how to appropriately specify it in bulkmicrophysics schemes. However, this study shows that enhancing ourobservations of this width and its behavior in clouds is important foraccurately predicting condensation and evaporation rates

The role of the gamma function shape parameter in determining differences between condensation rates in bin and bulk microphysics schemes