4.7 Article

Coalescence Scavenging Drives Droplet Number Concentration in Southern Ocean Low Clouds

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL097819

关键词

cloud droplet number concentration; aerosol; Southern Ocean; coalescence scavenging; cloud condensation nuclei; precipitation

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [AGS-1660609, AGS-2124993]
  2. NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program [NA18NWS4620043B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, high-altitude aircraft observations and a simple source-and-sink budget model were used to investigate the formation and control mechanisms of cloud droplet number concentration (N-d) in Southern Ocean stratocumulus clouds during the austral summer. The results showed that coalescence scavenging is an important sink of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in Southern Ocean clouds, and the free tropospheric aerosol source has a stronger impact on N-d than the surface aerosol source.
Cloud droplet number concentration (N-d) is a key microphysical property that is largely controlled by the balance between sources and sinks of aerosols that serve as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Despite being a key sink of CCN, the impact of coalescence scavenging on Southern Ocean (SO) cloud is poorly known. We apply a simple source-and-sink budget model based on parameterizations to austral summer aircraft observations to test model behavior and examine the relative influence of processes that determine N-d in SO stratocumulus clouds. The model predicts N-d with little bias and a correlation coefficient of similar to 0.7 compared with observations. Coalescence scavenging is found to be an important sink of CCN in both liquid and mixed-phase precipitating stratocumulus and reduces the predicted N-d by as much as 90% depending on the precipitation rate. The free tropospheric aerosol source controls N-d more strongly than the surface aerosol source during austral summer.

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

4.7
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