4.6 Article

Land-ocean differences in the warm-rain formation process in satellite and ground-based observations and model simulations

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 143, Issue 705, Pages 1804-1815

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/qj.3042

Keywords

the warm-rain process; drizzle; vertical velocity; the A-Train observations; Atmospheric Radiation Measurement; a one-dimensional model

Funding

  1. NASA [NNN13D455T]
  2. NOAA's Climate Program Office's Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections [NA15OAR4310153]
  3. JAXA/EarthCARE
  4. JAXA/GCOM-C projects
  5. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate and Environmental Sciences Division

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A previous study explored land-ocean differences in the warm-rain formation process. In that study, aerosol effects were removed, or at least partially removed, but some land-ocean differences remained. Therefore, the study hypothesized that the land-ocean difference in the microphysical structure of warm clouds and in the formation of warm rain can be explained by differences in the nature of updraughts. To test this hypothesis, this study provides a detailed analysis of the land-ocean differences in warm clouds using a combination of CloudSat and MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) observations, ground-based measurements obtained from Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM), as well as a simple model framework. Our results show that a stronger updraught increases the height at which significant coalescence begins, and also prolongs the lifetime of falling drops promoting larger droplet growth. A consequence of this difference is that drizzle is less frequently observed at cloud base over land. Our results point to the critical role of the strength of the convective updraught in the warm-rain formation process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available