4.5 Article

Distinct Change of Supercooled Liquid Cloud Properties by Aerosols From an Aircraft-Based Seeding Experiment

期刊

EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2020EA001196

关键词

cloud seeding; ice crystal; particle size distribution; evaluation; supercooled liquid clouds

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFA0606803, 2017YFC1501403, 2018YFC1507900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41925022, 91837204, 41575143]
  3. Hebei province Key Research and Development project [20375402D]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology
  5. Key Laboratory for Cloud Physics of China Meteorological Administration [2019Z01601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cloud plays essential roles to Earth's energy balance and hydrological cycle. Its characteristics could be modified by human activities through cloud seeding. However, there is long-lasting debate whether the cloud seeding can modify the clouds to introduce or change precipitation effectively, due to the challenge that the effect of cloud seeding is difficult to be evaluated. Using the data from a cloud seeding experiment, this study investigates the differences of cloud properties between before and after the cloud seeding for a supercooled liquid cloud. It shows that before the cloud seeding, the clouds are supercooled liquid phase clouds. After cloud seeding, the observations from both the cloud particle images and cloud particle size distributions indicate the occurrence of large ice crystal particles and the broadening of particle size distribution. Thus, much larger and much more ice crystal particles occurred after the cloud seeding, which could further grow into precipitation particles through collision-coalescence process. Satellite image further shows the formation of precipitation clearly after the cloud seeding experiment. This study suggests that cloud seeding can work efficiently for supercooled liquid clouds.

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

4.5
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