Premium
Reply to Comments By C. B. Moore and B. Vonnegut: Further Analysis of Two Regions of Charge During Initial Thunderstorm Electrification
Author(s) -
Dye J. E.,
Jones J. J.,
Weinheimer A. J.,
Winn W. P.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
quarterly journal of the royal meteorological society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.744
H-Index - 143
eISSN - 1477-870X
pISSN - 0035-9009
DOI - 10.1002/qj.49711850411
Subject(s) - graupel , thunderstorm , altitude (triangle) , charge (physics) , particle (ecology) , meteorology , physics , atmospheric sciences , lightning (connector) , computational physics , geology , ice crystals , atomic physics , geometry , thermodynamics , quantum mechanics , power (physics) , oceanography , mathematics
Abstract In response to the comments of Moore and Vonnegut we have thoroughly re‐examined the aircraft and radar measurements made in two small thunderstorms in New Mexico originally reported by Dye et al. (1988). Our conclusions remain the same. Although pressure altitude was used instead of geometric altitude in one case and distance labels were interchanged for a vertical section used to illustrate the other case, improved calculations for the particle image measurements and the ice particle collision rate show that the two regions of charge were in or near locations with appreciable supercooled liquid water, ice particle concentrations and graupel, and also near the top of reflectivity cores as originally stated. As before, we conclude that, given this spatial correlation of the inferred charge with ice particles and liquid water, the observations are consistent with what is expected from the non‐inductive ice‐collision charge separation mechanism of thunderstorm electrification. However, because the data are incomplete we cannot preclude the possibility that one of the regions of charge (on 15 August 1984) was the result of positive ions being attracted to the cloud by a downward‐directed field, as suggested by Moore and Vonnegut.