Premium
On the relationship between cloud contact time and precipitation susceptibility to aerosol
Author(s) -
Feingold Graham,
McComiskey Allison,
Rosenfeld Daniel,
Sorooshian Armin
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8996
pISSN - 2169-897X
DOI - 10.1002/jgrd.50819
Subject(s) - aerosol , coalescence (physics) , precipitation , collision , accretion (finance) , extant taxon , environmental science , atmospheric sciences , drizzle , meteorology , physics , astrophysics , computer science , computer security , evolutionary biology , astrobiology , biology
The extent to which the rain rate from shallow, liquid‐phase clouds is microphysically influenced by aerosol, and therefore drop concentration N d perturbations, is addressed through analysis of the precipitation susceptibility, S o . Previously published work, based on both models and observations, disagrees on the qualitative behavior of S o with respect to variables such as liquid water path L or the ratio between accretion and autoconversion rates. Two primary responses have emerged: (i) S o decreases monotonically with increasing L and (ii) S o increases with L , reaches a maximum, and decreases thereafter. Here we use a variety of modeling frameworks ranging from box models of (size‐resolved) collision‐coalescence, to trajectory ensembles based on large eddy simulation to explore the role of time available for collision‐coalescence t c in determining the S o response. The analysis shows that an increase in t c shifts the balance of rain production from autoconversion (a N d ‐dependent process) to accretion (roughly independent of N d ), all else (e.g., L ) equal. Thus, with increasing cloud contact time, warm rain production becomes progressively less sensitive to aerosol, all else equal. When the time available for collision‐coalescence is a limiting factor, S o increases with increasing L whereas when there is ample time available, S o decreases with increasing L . The analysis therefore explains the differences between extant studies in terms of an important precipitation‐controlling parameter, namely the integrated liquid water history over the course of an air parcel's contact with a cloud.