4.6 Article

Effects of aerosol sources and chemical compositions on cloud drop sizes and glaciation temperatures

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 120, 期 18, 页码 9653-9669

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JD023270

关键词

precipitation chemistry; aerosol-cloud interaction; cloud glaciation

资金

  1. Water Authority of Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of aerosols on cloud properties, such as its droplet sizes and its glaciation temperatures, depends on their compositions and concentrations. In order to examine these effects, we collected rain samples in northern Israel during five winters (2008-2011 and 2013) and determined their chemical composition, which was later used to identify the aerosols' sources. By combining the chemical data with satellite-retrieved cloud properties, we linked the aerosol types, sources, and concentrations with the cloud glaciation temperatures (T-g). The presence of dust increased T-g from -26 degrees C to -12 degrees C already at relatively low dust concentrations. This result is in agreement with the conventional wisdom that desert dust serves as good ice nuclei (INs). With higher dust concentrations, T-g saturated at -12 degrees C, even though cloud droplet sizes decreased as a result of the cloud condensation nucleating (CCN) activity of the dust. Marine air masses also encouraged freezing, but in this case, freezing was enhanced by the larger cloud droplet sizes in the air masses (caused by low CCN concentrations) and not by IN concentrations or by aerosol type. An increased fraction of anthropogenic aerosols in marine air masses caused a decrease in T-g, indicating that these aerosols served as poor IN. Anthropogenic aerosols reduced cloud droplet sizes, which further decreased T-g. Our results could be useful in climate models for aerosol-cloud interactions, as we investigated the effects of aerosols of different sources on cloud properties. Such parameterization can simplify these models substantially.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据