On transition-zone water clouds

Hirsch, E.; Koren, I.; Levin, Z.; Altaratz, O.; Agassi, E.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9001-2014

Articles | Volume 14, issue 17

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9001-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9001-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 17

Research article

|

01 Sep 2014

Research article |

| 01 Sep 2014

On transition-zone water clouds

E. Hirsch, I. Koren, Z. Levin, O. Altaratz, and E. Agassi

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Sep 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Jan 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C663: 'Review of: "On transition-zone water clouds" by Hirsch et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Mar 2014
RC C976: 'Referee comment', Ulrich Blahak, 01 Apr 2014
AC C3318: 'Authors' response', Eitan Hirsch, 08 Jun 2014

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Eitan Hirsch on behalf of the Authors (08 Jun 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jun 2014) by Bernhard Vogel

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Jul 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The additional information/qualifiers added by the authors address most of my concerns and I think
the manuscript can be published more or less as is. I do think that there is still some
misunderstanding about the advantages of conserved variables in modeling/analysis of this type,
however. Specifically, the sentence on p. 8, line "For this purpose, the model solves the first law
of thermodynamics directly", seems to indicate that using a conserved variable in for the
energy equation is less accurate. That isn't true, as Betts (1974) showed, using the first
vs. the second law has implications about whether energy is disspated locally or globally,
but there's no reason why temperture determined by integrating conserved variables is
any less accurate than conserved variables determined by integrating the temperature (and in
fact your equation A1 is just a statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for dry air
assuming a reversible process (see Hauff and Hiler (1987) for a detailed analysis).

To make you Appendix a complete record of your model, you should also:

1) write down your expression for dq in terms of the droplet growth equation and the latent heat
2) write out the full expressions you used for the temperature dependent latent heat and the
heat capacity for the air + vapor + liquid mixture
3) add the hydroscopic equation you used to convert pressure to height.

@ARTICLE{Betts74,
author = {Betts, Alan K.},
title = {Further Comments on A Comparison of the Equivalent Potential Temperature and the Static Energy},
journal = {J. Atmos. Sci.},
volume = {31},
number = {6},
year = {1974},
pages = {1713-1715},
doi = {10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031<1713:FCOCOT>2.0.CO;2},
}

@ARTICLE{Hauf87,
author = {Hauf, Thomas and Hller, Hartmut},
title = {Entropy and Potential Temperature},
journal = {J. Atmos. Sci.},
volume = {44},
number = {20},
year = {1987},
pages = {2887-2901},
doi = {10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2887:EAPT>2.0.CO;2}
}

Hide

RR by Ulrich Blahak (17 Jul 2014)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 Jul 2014) by Bernhard Vogel

AR by Eitan Hirsch on behalf of the Authors (30 Jul 2014) Author's response Manuscript