<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-15-11729-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>High ice water content at low radar reflectivity near deep convection – Part 2: Evaluation of microphysical pathways in updraft parcel simulations</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{High ice water content at low radar reflectivity -- Part 2}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~S.~Ackerman et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ackerman</surname><given-names>A. S.</given-names></name>
          <email>andrew.ackerman@nasa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0254-6253</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fridlind</surname><given-names>A. M.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9020-0852</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Grandin</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Dezitter</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Weber</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Strapp</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Korolev</surname><given-names>A. V.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3877-8419</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Airbus Operations SAS, 316 route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse CEDEX 9, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Met Analytics Inc., Aurora, Ontario, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Cloud Physics and Severe Weather Research Section, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">A. S. Ackerman (andrew.ackerman@nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>22</day><month>October</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>20</issue>
      <fpage>11729</fpage><lpage>11751</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>5</day><month>May</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>17</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>4</day><month>October</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day><month>October</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>The aeronautics industry has established that a threat to aircraft
is posed by atmospheric conditions of substantial ice water content
(IWC) where equivalent radar reflectivity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) does
not exceed 20–30 dBZ and supercooled water is not present; these
conditions are
encountered almost exclusively in the vicinity of deep
convection. Part 1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="altparen.1"/>) of this two-part study presents in situ
measurements of such conditions sampled by Airbus in three tropical
regions, commonly near 11 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>43 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and
concludes that the measured ice particle size distributions are
broadly consistent with past literature with profiling radar
measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean Doppler velocity obtained
within monsoonal deep convection in one of the regions sampled. In
all three regions, the Airbus measurements generally indicate
variable IWC that often exceeds 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with relatively
uniform mass median area-equivalent diameter (MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) of
200–300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Here we use a parcel model with
size-resolved microphysics to investigate microphysical pathways
that could lead to such conditions.  Our simulations indicate that
homogeneous freezing of water drops produces a much smaller ice
MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> than observed, and occurs only in the absence of
hydrometeor gravitational collection for the conditions
considered. Development of a mass mode of ice aloft that overlaps
with the measurements requires a substantial source of small ice
particles at temperatures of about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C or warmer,
which subsequently grow from water vapor.  One conceivable source in
our simulation framework is Hallett–Mossop ice production; another
is abundant concentrations of heterogeneous ice freezing nuclei
acting together with copious shattering of water drops upon
freezing.  Regardless of the production mechanism, the dominant mass
modal diameter of vapor-grown ice is reduced as the ice-multiplication source strength increases and as competition for
water vapor increases.  Both mass and modal diameter are reduced by
entrainment and by increasing aerosol concentrations.  Weaker
updrafts lead to greater mass and larger modal diameters of
vapor-grown ice, the opposite of expectations regarding lofting of
larger ice particles in stronger updrafts.  While stronger updrafts
do loft more dense ice particles produced primarily by raindrop
freezing, we find that weaker updrafts allow the warm rain process
to reduce competition for diffusional growth of the less dense ice
expected to persist in convective outflow.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Over the last 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">years</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, more than 160 incidents of jet
engine power loss have been traced to flight through fully
glaciated clouds under conditions that can cause engine rollback
events (uncommanded power loss), engine flameouts, and engine
damage <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.2"/>.  Crew reports consistently include
the following conditions
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44 bib1.bibx29 bib1.bibx52" id="paren.3"/>: (1) lack of
significant airframe icing, (2) low to moderate turbulence, (3) anomalous true air temperature readings owing to probe inlet
icing, (4) flight level radar equivalent reflectivity
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) below 20–30 dBZ, and (5) moderate to heavy
rain below the melting level indicated by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> greater
than 30 dBZ.  The aeronautics industry concluded that
unexpectedly high ice water content (IWC) at relatively low
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is most likely responsible <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.4"/>.  The
event conditions are described in greater detail in Sect. 2 of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="author.5"/> (2015, hereafter Part 1).</p>
      <p>We hereafter refer to the principle meteorological signature of
the jet engine power loss events as “high IWC–low
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>” conditions. Here, the definition of low
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is less than 20 dBZ, roughly the minimum
reflectivity seen on aircraft radar using the baseline gain
setting.  The definition of high IWC, on the other hand, is not
well known.  Hot-wire probes have been found to fail or perform
erratically under field conditions found sufficient to induce
rollback in a flight test <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx68" id="paren.6"/>.  Indirect means
of measuring IWC by integrating measured ice particle size
distribution are typically subject to uncertainties that may be
a factor of 2 or more <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.7"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.
Instrument development in general suffers from a lack of
sufficiently calibrated testing conditions, such as in wind tunnels
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69 bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.8"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p>To better characterize high IWC–low <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions,
Airbus conducted a series of flight tests from Cayenne, Darwin,
and Santiago during 2010–2012 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.9"/>.  In each
location, an Airbus 340 was flown with an imaging nephelometer
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="paren.10"/> and the Robust hot-wire probe designed by
Science Engineering Associates (SEA) and tested under wind tunnel
conditions up to IWC of about 8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see discussion
in Sect. 3 of Part 1).  Flight tests sought to sample large, cold-topped
mesoscale convective systems (MCSs), where more than 80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
of documented events have occurred <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="paren.11"/>.  In
Sect. 3 of Part 1, we present a survey of the Airbus measurements and an
analysis of the highest IWC conditions encountered in all three
regions at cruise altitudes around 10–12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.
These cold temperatures were the focus of the Airbus flight tests, in part because
over one-third of the engine events reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.12"/> occurred at
temperatures colder than <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (and over a quarter at temperatures
colder than <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). The importance of such cold temperatures is
further supported by the latest Boeing engine icing event database of 162 events
occurring at a median temperature of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.13"/>.
IWC derived from the Robust probe measurements
and integration of the nephelometer size distributions generally
agree to about 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over a wide range of IWC;
uncertainty in each is estimated to be roughly a factor of 2 owing in
large part to the uncertainty in Robust probe calibration <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.14"/>
and in the mass-dimensional relationship applied to the nephelometer size
distribution measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.15"/>.
At each location, reported IWC exceeded
2–4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during multiple flights.  Under the
conditions of highest IWC in all regions, measured ice size
distributions exhibited a concentration of mass within the size
range 100–500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in area-equivalent diameter
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; the diameter of a circle with the same area),
with corresponding mass median area-equivalent diameter (MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 200–300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
uncertainty in MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is estimated to be roughly 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> owing in
large part to uncertainty in shattering artifacts that may contaminate airborne
particle probe measurements in a manner that decreases as the moment of the size
distribution increases <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx35" id="paren.16"/>.</p>
      <p>Owing to the substantial uncertainty associated with both IWC and
ice size distribution from in situ measurements
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.17"/>, Sect. 4 of Part 1 of this work assesses
the consistency of the Airbus data with remote-sensing
measurements of a large MCS observed over Darwin, Australia, on
23 January 2006 during the Tropical Warm Pool International Cloud
Experiment (TWP-ICE) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="paren.18"/>.</p>
      <p>To briefly summarize the results in Part 1, a survey of the Airbus
data found relatively narrow ice mass size distributions spanning
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 100–500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
of 200–300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> associated with the highest IWC
conditions measured in all three regions, and these features
appear consistent with remote-sensing measurements from TWP-ICE
and in situ measurements reported elsewhere, thus motivating the
effort here in Part 2 to investigate microphysical pathways that
could lead to such size distributions. Given the fundamental, open
questions about the dominant microphysical processes for varying
updraft conditions, here we use an idealized parcel modeling
framework.  In the following we first briefly summarize relevant
deep convection updraft properties in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>
and earlier results from CRM simulations in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/>.  We then describe the parcel model and
simulations in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>, comparing results with
the Airbus measurements throughout. After a discussion in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>, we summarize our findings in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S6"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Updraft microphysical pathways</title>
      <p>A prominent feature of the Airbus measurements used here is the
consistent concentration of mass among particles with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 100–500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Upon finding anvil
and also turret mass size distributions similarly dominated by
particles with maximum dimensions of a few hundred micrometers
over Central America and western Africa, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.19"/>
hypothesized that this size distribution signature pointed to
a particular series of microphysical processes: heterogeneous
freezing of raindrops at temperatures warmer than
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C leading to graupel that would preferentially
sediment; heterogeneous freezing of remaining water drops at
temperatures colder than <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C leading to vapor-grown
crystals of several hundred micrometers in size and their
aggregates; and possibly homogeneous freezing of any droplets
remaining at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, which would preferentially
sublimate upon outflow. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.20"/> also discussed two
classes of larger particles: graupel particles formed by riming
within updrafts, which sediment within or near to their sources,
and aggregates formed by collisions of non-graupel ice both
within updrafts and after detrainment, which preferentially
occupy lower anvil regions, consistent with past findings
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.21"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p>A key aspect of the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.22"/> conceptual model is
that particles dominating anvil mass originate as similarly sized
particles from updraft turrets. In addition, they are identified
as vapor-grown or only lightly rimed particles. This
identification appears consistent with the
common presence of capped columns in the Airbus measurements (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>),
a habit found elsewhere in tropical deep convection outflow
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32 bib1.bibx45" id="paren.23"><named-content content-type="pre">cf.</named-content></xref>.
The majority of crystals in the Airbus measurements appear irregular and are generally
of insufficient clarity to distinguish rime or other morphological details.
The <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.24"/> attribution of mass-dominating ice to freezing of water drops
by heterogeneous nuclei is consistent with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="normal.25"/>, who reported cirrus ice
residuals being predominantly of mineral or metallic composition in deep convection
outflow and synoptic cirrus. To explain compositional dissimilarity between the
population of near-cloud aerosols and ice residuals, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="normal.26"/>
argued for the predominance of heterogeneous freezing, as discussed further below.</p>
      <p>In motivating a satellite-based analysis of convective cloud-top
phase, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="text.27"/> pointed to “wide gaps in our
understanding of the processes that glaciate clouds”. In
motivating an aerosol-focused comparison of deep convection
simulations with observations, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.28"/> reported
“very few studies that verify their results against
observations” in the modeling literature. Evidence of a gap in
knowledge of primary microphysical pathways within deep
convection updrafts can also be found in the broad range of ice
conditions simulated within tropical deep convection by various
microphysics schemes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx76" id="paren.29"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. Observational
studies commonly refer to posited updraft microphysical pathways
as hypothetical in nature, for instance in considering volcanic
aerosol effects on electrification within maritime updrafts
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75" id="paren.30"/> or the dependence of deep convection
properties on aerosol in general <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62" id="paren.31"/>. The
role of primary ice nucleation is also debated, with some studies
suggesting little role for heterogeneous freezing in deep
convection <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.32"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>, and others suggesting
an important role for heterogeneous freezing in determining the
updraft glaciation rate <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.33"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.  Other
processes suggested to play prominent roles in updraft glaciation
include the Hallett–Mossop rime-splintering process
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.34"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref> and drop shattering during
freezing <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="paren.35"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>, among others; see also
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.36"/> and references therein.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Imaging nephelometer views of capped columns from Airbus flight
tests. Images are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>512</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>512</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> square pixels 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in width, for
a total image size of about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm. Maximum
dimensions of these capped columns are about 300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p>In this study we turn to the rudimentary tool of parcel
simulation to investigate pathways that can explain the Airbus
ice measurements, given that more expensive and complex
simulations suffer from relatively gross deficiencies (described
below), which could well stem from missing or poorly represented
ice formation processes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>CRM simulations</title>
      <p>IWC and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from three 3-D cloud-resolving model
(CRM) simulations of the 23 January MCS during TWP-ICE are shown
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. The first two simulations – System
for Atmospheric Modeling (SAM)-2M, Distributed Hydrodynamic Aerosol and Radiative Modeling for Atmospheres
(DHARMA)-2M –
both using two-moment bulk microphysics
and sampled every 3 h, are typical of
CRM simulations reported in a model intercomparison that included
the 23 January period examined in Sects. 4–6 of Part 1 of this study
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25 bib1.bibx74" id="paren.37"/>. The CRM simulations did not generally
differ systematically from limited-area model simulations
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx76 bib1.bibx74" id="paren.38"/>. At temperatures in
a 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> range around <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, statistics from
SAM-2M and DHARMA-2M fields during the MCS period
(12:00–24:00 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">UTC</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) contain regions of 2–4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
IWC, but these are rare where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBZ
(area delimited by dashed line in the figure) and
non-existent where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBZ.  Because the ice
size distributions are assumed to be exponential, reflectivity
may be unrealistically high. However, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74" id="text.39"/> also
concluded that these simulations, like the others they examined,
exhibited stratiform rain rates notably lower than observed,
which they attributed primarily to insufficient IWC aloft rather
than other factors. The third simulation, using bin microphysics
(DHARMA-bin)
on a domain with a quarter of the horizontal area
and restarted from the DHARMA-2M simulation at 03:00 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">UTC</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on 23 January
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx72" id="paren.40"/>, does not assume any size distribution shape for
hydrometeors, but IWC greater than 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is still
similarly absent at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> less than 20 dBZ, for
instance. By contrast, such conditions were repeatedly found in
Airbus measurements and also appear consistent with
remote-sensing measurements of the 23 January event, as described
in Sects. 4–6 of Part 1.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Joint histograms of Rayleigh-regime equivalent radar reflectivity
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. total hydrometeor condensed water content LWC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> IWC
from the last 12 h of 23 January TWP-ICE simulations using the System
for Atmospheric Modeling (SAM) with two-moment microphysics (left panel) and
the Distributed Hydrodynamic Aerosol and Radiative Modeling for Atmospheres
(DHARMA) using two-moment and bin microphysics (center and right panels,
respectively) at an altitude where the mean air temperature is
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f02.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> compares ice size distributions from the
DHARMA-bin simulation with those measured during Airbus flight
1423, which are typical of those found in Airbus measurements
where the greatest IWC was typically found at an altitude of
10–12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Sect. 3 of Part 1). While the simulation and
measurements both reveal consistent modal features across a wide
range of IWC, the majority of mass in the measurements is
concentrated at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  In
the simulations, the highest IWC is found in the presence of
graupel within convective cores, which constitutes the primary mass-containing mode at
1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Where no such graupel is present, in the
quiescent anvil regions, ice mass spans 100–1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and is present at IWC much lesser than observed.  Thus, in areas
with similarly sized ice in the simulation, the simulated mode is
notably wider than observed and contains far less mass.  We note
that the larger particle size mode in the simulations is located
in convective cores, whereas the Airbus flight tests only skirted
convective cores for the sake of flight safety and the ice
particles comprising most of the mass are not graupel.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Particle size distributions in terms of number (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, left) and mass
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, right) as functions of area-equivalent particle diameter
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) obtained during Airbus flight test out of Cayenne (red
lines) and from DHARMA-bin simulations (as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>; blue
lines). Different line patterns correspond to IWC ranges as indicated. Airbus
measurements encompass flight 1423, as discussed at length and shown in
Figs. 4–6 of Part 1. DHARMA-bin results are from a horizontal line spanning
the 88 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> wide domain through the point of maximum IWC at
11.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>43.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) at 21:40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">UTC</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on 23 January
2006,
typical of mature convection in the simulation.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f03.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Although not exhaustive, from these comparisons we conclude that
detailed CRM simulations of tropical MCS conditions do not
consistently produce high IWC–low <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions
insofar as “high IWC” is interpreted as exceeding
2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Given the many outstanding questions about
the dominant microphysical processes determining deep convection
updraft glaciation rates and ice outflow properties, together with
the corresponding computational expense and complexity of
investigating possible reasons for deficiencies in CRM
simulations, here we consider idealized parcel simulations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Parcel simulations</title>
      <p>In Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS1"/> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS2"/> we describe the
components and setup of the minimal parcel model, which omits all processes not
described therein. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/> presents results from
the minimal model, followed by a series of sections in which a process or
family of associated processes is sequentially added in each: heterogeneous ice
freezing (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS4"/>), Hallett–Mossop ice production (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS5"/>),
particle sedimentation (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS6"/>), gravitational collection and raindrop
breakup, excluding ice–ice collisions (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS7"/>), ice–ice collisions
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS8"/>), shattering of freezing drops (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS9"/>),
and entrainment of environmental air (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS10"/>).
We finish Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> by considering sensitivity of the results
to ice properties (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS11"/>), aerosol population
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS12"/>), and cloud-base altitude (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS13"/>).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Baseline model description</title>
      <p>We begin with a parcel model that uses the Community Aerosol–Radiation–Microphysics for Atmospheres (CARMA) code
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx36" id="paren.41"/> to resolve particle size distributions
(PSDs) without any assumptions regarding PSD shape for three
particle classes: unactivated aerosol, water drops, and pristine
ice particles. The prognostic variables in the model are potential
temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, and the number
concentration of particles within a uniform number of size bins
for each of the three particle classes. For hydrometeors the mass
concentration of aerosol within each size bin is also prognostic.
The size bins correspond to a geometric progression of total
particle mass and the number of bins in the model is flexible.
The mass bins for ice particles are matched to those for water
drops, and thus changes to the assumed mass-dimensional relation,
which do not change during a simulation, result in changes to the
corresponding ice particle densities and sizes.  All simulations
include adiabatic expansion, droplet activation, diffusional
growth of hydrometeors, and homogeneous freezing of activated
water drops.</p>
      <p>The vertical profile of updraft speed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is specified as
a function of height <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> above the surface, and the height of the
parcel is incremented by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> each time step
of duration <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Parcel expansion is treated by assuming
dry adiabatic ascent and iterating 3 times on parcel air
pressure, temperature, and density assuming hydrostatic conditions
and using the ideal gas law. All prognostic particle
concentrations are then rescaled by the new air density.
Latent heat released by water phase change is applied to the air temperature
of the parcel using the time step for the process involved (described in
next section).</p>
      <p>Uptake of water by unactivated aerosol is neglected and activation
of aerosol particles to water droplets is computed following
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="text.42"/>.  Diffusional growth of hydrometeors from water
vapor is treated with the piecewise polynomial method of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="text.43"/> where the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy
condition is met on the mass grid, and first-order upwind
advection elsewhere.  Growth rates for water drops are computed
from Eq. (3) of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="text.44"/> for water drops, and for ice
particles the capacitance method described in Sect. 13.3 of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="text.45"/> is used assuming spheroids.
The accommodation coefficient for diffusional growth is assumed to be unity.
Radiative
heating effects on activation and growth rates are neglected.
Homogeneous freezing of water drops is computed following
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="text.46"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Setup</title>
      <p>For parcel simulations that omit gravitational collection we
include only one ice class, representing vapor-grown ice
particles.  For the baseline model configuration, we treat the ice
as low-density spheres in which the density is computed from the
mass-dimensional relation that <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.47"/> found for
aggregates of unrimed radiating assemblages of plates, side
planes, bullets, and columns.  Like <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="text.48"/>, we
apply this mass-dimensional relation to ice particles smaller than
the 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> lower limit of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.49"/>, but
unlike <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="text.50"/> we use the diameter of a sphere
with equivalent cross sectional area as done by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.51"/> and as used in the analysis of Airbus
nephelometer data. For area-equivalent diameters <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
less than about 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> this relation implies an ice
particle density exceeding that of bulk ice; for those sizes we
assume spherical ice particles with a fixed density of
0.92 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.52"/>. We
simplistically refer to these vapor-grown ice particles as
“fluffy” ice.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><caption><p>Parameters for three lognormal modes of initial aerosol size
distribution. For each mode, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is total number concentration,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mean geometric radius, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mean
geometric standard deviation.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">447</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">26</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.45</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Here, we use 150 size bins corresponding to spherical diameter for
aerosol particles ranging from 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 14 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and for water drops from 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The aerosol are treated as ammonium bisulfate with properties as
given by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="text.53"/>.  For the initial aerosol size distribution
(see Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>), we use the trimodal lognormal fit to
TWP-ICE measurements at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude from
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="text.54"/>.</p>
      <p>All processes are computed on the master time step of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with the exception of droplet activation,
droplet homogeneous freezing, and hydrometeor diffusional growth,
which are solved on 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> sub-steps.  Parameters that
depend on pressure and temperature are updated every
15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Such parameters include particle terminal fall
speeds, the gravitational collection kernel, and coefficients for
droplet activation and hydrometeor diffusional growth.</p>
      <p>The parcel simulations start at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude with
initial conditions from the 21:00 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">UTC</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> TWP-ICE sounding on
23 January 2006 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.55"/> with air pressure at
944 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, temperature 296.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and relative
humidity 98 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Profiles of parcel updraft speed (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), water drop concentration
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), liquid water content (LWC), ice particle concentration
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and ice water content (IWC), and ice particle size
distribution (PSD) at output level nearest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for simulations
with droplet activation, diffusional growth, and homogeneous drop freezing
only, and baseline updraft strength scaled by factors of 0.5 (red solid
line), 1.0 (blue dotted line), and 1.5 (green dashed line), Shaded area in
PSD panel is envelope of median Airbus PSDs from Cayenne and Darwin for
IWC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Fig. 6 of Part 1). Horizontal lines in
profiles correspond to 0 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. PSD is plotted in terms of
ice particle mass (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and area-equivalent diameter <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
numbers in the upper right of the PSD panel are MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in units of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and IWC in units of g <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the IWC-filtered
measurements (in gray) and correspond to simulation results with same line
color. MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from simulations are rounded to nearest 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to reduce attention to smaller differences attributable to variations in
height resulting from 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> output frequency.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>For the assumed vertical profile of updraft speed,
seen in upper left panel of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>,
we use a coarse
spline fit to the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="text.56"/> median profile of maximum
retrieved updraft speeds during a period of about 4.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as
a large monsoonal MCS passed over Darwin during TWP-ICE.  For the
baseline profile the updraft speed rapidly increases to about
8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, increases at a reduced rate
to about 11 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> just above 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and falls
off at an intermediate rate above, reaching 6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which lies above the highest levels we consider
here; for the spline fit we use updraft speeds of 0, 7, 11, and
0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at respective altitudes of 0, 3, 11, and
18 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.  This profile resembles the mean profile of
maximum updraft speeds in oceanic deep convection from the
airborne Doppler retrievals of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.57"/>, with values
in the median profile here generally about 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
less than in that mean profile.  For many scenarios we consider
two alternative updraft profiles, uniformly increasing and
decreasing baseline updraft speeds by 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>.  The time for a parcel to ascend from cloud
base to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C is just over 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the
baseline updraft.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Homogeneous freezing</title>
      <p>First we consider only adiabatic expansion, droplet activation,
diffusional growth, and homogeneous freezing of water drops. As
seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, stronger updrafts activate more
aerosol by driving a greater supersaturations near cloud base (not
shown), which drives greater number concentrations of ice upon
homogeneous freezing of the water drops between about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Since the liquid water content (LWC) that
freezes does not vary with updraft strength, the freezing of more
numerous droplets in the faster updrafts simply produces smaller
ice particles.  It is seen in the comparison of ice particle mass
distributions that homogeneous freezing produces substantially
smaller ice particles and greater IWC than in the Airbus
measurements. For the baseline and strong updraft, the PSDs overlap with the hint of an upturn in the
Airbus PSD envelope at the small end of the PSD measurements,
suggesting that this smaller mode, if real and not a shattering
artifact, could correspond to homogeneously frozen water drops,
which would be expected to be more favored in stronger updrafts. As
noted above, there is observational evidence for homogeneous
freezing in strong updrafts
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39 bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx67" id="paren.58"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.  In these
simplified simulations, the size of homogeneously frozen drops best
matches observations for the strong updraft.</p>
      <p>Discontinuities are seen in the profiles of droplet number
concentration in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> and in later profiles. Such
discontinuities result from discretization of the aerosol size
distribution and treatment of activation of droplets from aerosol
by size bin as a nearly instantaneous process. Solutions to reduce
such an artifact could be devised, but we lack evidence that this
artifact materially affects results or conclusions here.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Heterogeneous freezing</title>
      <p>Our treatment of heterogeneous ice freezing nuclei (IFN) considers
freezing of activated water drops in the immersion and condensation
modes using the approach described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.59"/>. IFN
activation follows the temperature-dependent fit provided in Fig. 2
of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.60"/>, without extrapolating beyond their sampled
temperature range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.  The IFN are
treated prognostically, assumed equally distributed among unactivated
aerosol and droplets, and consumed when activated.  Adding such IFN
has a negligible impact on our results even when the total number
available is tenfold that of the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.61"/> fit.  Only when
the concentration is increased by a factor of 100 do the IFN affect
the results, with a very weak second mode developing at larger
sizes as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>, with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  This factor of 100 corresponds to an IFN
concentration of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, which
is about 5 times greater than the greatest measured value
contributing to the fit reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.62"/>.  At warmer
temperatures the factor of 100 provides modest numbers of IFN,
corresponding to about 0.04 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>As in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> for simulations that also include
1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of immersion-mode IFN (red solid line) or
pseudo-Hallett–Mossop embryos (blue dotted line), both with baseline
updraft. Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <title>Hallett–Mossop ice production</title>
      <p>Given the mild response to even a hundredfold increase in IFN
active in the immersion mode relative to measured IFN
concentrations, we next consider a source of ice particles
effective at much warmer temperatures: ice multiplication from
production of ice splinters associated with riming of supercooled
water <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.63"/>.  Lacking a source of graupel
entering the parcel from above, we crudely represent the
Hallett–Mossop process with a “pseudo” version in which ice
particles are introduced in the smallest size bin between
temperatures of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and the water drop PSD rescaled to conserve total moisture.  The potential ice embryos are
treated prognostically and consumed when activated. The temperature
dependence of their availability follows the triangular form of
Eqs. (16)–(71) of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="text.64"/> and peaks at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
      <p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.65"/> measured production of about 350 splinters
per milligram of rime accreted by graupel at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.66"><named-content content-type="pre">see also</named-content></xref>.  The parcel air density at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C is about 0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
a concentration of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is equivalent to about
0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Thus, 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of splinters
would require about 1.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of accreted rime, or
roughly 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the supercooled water available in the
parcel at that temperature.
On the basis of laboratory measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58 bib1.bibx57" id="paren.67"/>,
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="text.68"><named-content content-type="post">p. 358</named-content></xref> also note that approximately one
splinter is produced for every 100 to 250 water drops larger than 24 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
diameter accreted by graupel at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and thus 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of splinters would require 50 to 125 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of such drops. At levels corresponding to the Hallett–Mossop temperature range,
effectively all drops are larger than 24 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in diameter, and the required
drop number concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) exceed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at that level for the
slow updraft, and bracket <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the baseline and strong updrafts. However, our
crude representation of splinter production does not consume drops as real riming
would, and a substantial sink of drops can readily drive supersaturations that
activate new drops (as seen in a number of simulations below), which might provide
sufficient numbers of additional drops if riming were represented more physically,
as well as providing a supply of droplets smaller than 13 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> diameter that
are also required for ice production from rime splintering
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.69"><named-content content-type="post">p. 358</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p>As seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> formation of copious ice at such
warm temperatures provides ample time for diffusional growth, and
the resulting second mode is far more substantial than that
produced by IFN alone, and is comprised of somewhat larger
particles closer to the observational target. At temperatures
colder than homogeneous drop freezing, however, the mass and
numbers of ice particles are still dominated by homogeneously
frozen drops, and their MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is unaffected.</p>
      <p>The implication that the dominant mode of mass in the Airbus size
distributions results from ice particles that form at relatively
warm temperatures and are largely vapor-grown is consistent with
the common appearance of capped columns in the Airbus particle imagery
presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>. Such a habit is consistent with the formation
of splinters that grow as columns at temperature warmer than
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C where the Hallett–Mossop process is active, and
at colder temperatures where plates are favored subsequent
diffusional growth occurs through capping plates.  Such
polycrystalline features are consistent with “the response of
a column growing in a platelike growth regime” described by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="text.70"/> in the context of cirrus crystals with well
developed columnar forms developing polycrystalline plate or
side-plane components while falling through plate growth regimes
below.  The Hallett–Mossop process also has been observationally
associated with the generation of large number concentrations of
pristine columnar crystals <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.71"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.
However, without a more careful analysis of abundance and
contribution to total mass, the possibility of capped columns
growing while falling in the vicinity of an updraft rather than
rising through it <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.72"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>, or the
dominance of some other process, cannot be ruled out.</p>
      <p>Strengthening the updraft reduces the amount of time for
diffusional growth, and the second mode is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> to be diminished relative to the baseline
updraft profile. Weakening the updraft conversely provides more
time for ice formed at warm temperatures to grow from vapor, with
the second mode surpassing the modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
observational target.  And while this mode develops a few grams per
cubic meter of ice in the weak updraft at the expense of
supercooled water, homogeneous freezing of drops still dominates
the mass (seen in IWC profile) and numbers (seen in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> profile)
of ice particles, and thus their MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is only modestly
affected at cold temperatures aloft.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>As in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> for simulations that also include
a pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source producing 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> splinters
with baseline updraft strength scaled by factors of 0.5 (red solid line), 1.0
(blue dotted line, same as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>), and 1.5 (green dashed
line). Note that vertical scale for ice PSDs is logarithmic in preceding
figures so that insubstantial larger mode is evident, but is linear
hereafter.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p>Vertical profiles of fractional hydrometeor diffusional growth
occurring as vapor deposition on ice (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in which zero
corresponds to no depositional growth of ice and unity indicates that only
ice is growing from vapor diffusion) and saturation vapor ratio with respect
to liquid water (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) for simulations in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. Horizontal lines
as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The second mode of the ice PSD has more than 3 times the total
mass in the weak updraft relative to the baseline updraft, but the
ascent time is only twice as long, and can directly account for
only a factor of 2, though there is a positive feedback in which
more vapor deposition leads to greater ice surface area and thus
more deposition.  Additionally, fewer water drops in the weaker
updrafts (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/>) provide less competition
with the ice for vapor growth, since distributing the same LWC over
a smaller number of water drops results in less total surface area
available for condensation. Above 8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude or so there
is even less LWC to distribute, owing to a positive feedback in
which greater depositional growth of ice results in less
condensational growth of water drops, further diminishing
competition from the drops.  The resulting reduction in vapor
competition with decreasing updraft strength is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> in terms of the fraction of hydrometeor
diffusional growth occurring as vapor deposition on fluffy ice:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the respective vapor mass exchange rates
with ice particles and water drops, in which we omit only the
solute and curvature terms from the complete growth expressions
used in the model (the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> terms are much like Eqs. 1 and 2 of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="altparen.73"/>).  Thus, at an altitude of about 8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
there is effectively no competition for vapor from the water drops
in the weak updraft, while in the baseline and strong updrafts
condensation of water drops accounts for about half and three
quarters of the diffusional vapor sink, respectively.</p>
      <p>Hereafter, pseudo-Hallett–Mossop ice formation is included and
heterogeneous IFN neglected by default, except for sensitivity to
drop shattering considered further below.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS6">
  <title>Sedimentation</title>
      <p>Representing particle sedimentation in a parcel is problematic
because in principle a parcel is zero-dimensional. However, it is
implausible to ignore sedimentation during the duration of such
deep ascent: the time for the parcel to climb from cloud base to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C is just over 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the baseline
updraft and twice that for the weak updraft.  Our approach is to
treat the parcel as having a finite depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the order
of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and calculate sedimentation as an implicit loss
rate for hydrometeor concentration <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in each bin from
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the terminal fall speed for the hydrometeors in the bin.
Baseline terminal fall speeds for hydrometeors are computed
following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx10 bib1.bibx14" id="text.74"/> with a modification to the
drag coefficient as described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="text.75"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>Terminal fall speeds for ice particles as a function of
area-equivalent diameter at temperature <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and pressure
350 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for fluffy ice treated first as spheres (baseline treatment;
red solid line), second as with the same mass-dimensional relation but as
oblate spheroids (blue dotted line), and third as plates with a different
mass-dimensional relationship (green dashed line), and for dense ice
(dash-dotted magenta line, see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS7"/>). Filled area denotes
predominant size range of ice mass in Airbus measurements. Details provided
in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f08.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>As in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> for simulations that also allow
sedimentation with parcel depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f09.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>For the parcel depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we consider the
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="text.76"/> analysis of updraft thermals in CRM simulations
of cumulus congestus driven by a surface heat source 80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
across. They report parcel sizes of about 1–2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
derive a characteristic scale of about 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which they
note is equivalent to the boundary-layer depth in their
setup. Shallower boundary layers associated with maritime deep
convection might be expected to result in smaller characteristic
parcel sizes, so we consider values of 0.5, 1, and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
here. Note that the parcel concept is a convenient idealization
and, as such, its dimension is not particularly well posed and
does not obviously imply a representative updraft width that is
comparable.</p>
      <p>Terminal fall speeds for pristine ice particles are seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/> to be only about 0.1–0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
particles across the mass mode <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of about
100–500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Airbus measurements, more than an
order of magnitude smaller than updraft speeds in the baseline
profile.  (The discontinuity in slope near
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> corresponds to the transition
from spheres with bulk density of ice to the
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.77"/> mass-dimensional relation described
earlier.)  Thus, the effect of sedimentation is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/> to be modest for such particles, and at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C the IWC is reduced from 5.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
a simulation without sedimentation to 5.7, 5.5, and
5.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 1, and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively, and no change in MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
sensitivity not shown).  After considering additional
microphysical processes we will return to the sensitivity of our
results to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> assumed, but in the meantime fix its
value at 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>Weaker updrafts provide greater ascent time, which favors the
source of condensate from diffusional growth as seen already, but
also favors the removal of condensate by sedimentation. Thus,
comparing Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>, the greatest
impact on IWC is seen for the weak updraft: at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
sedimentation reduces IWC by about 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the
corresponding case without sedimentation. For the strong updraft,
sedimentation reduces IWC by less than 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to
the corresponding case without sedimentation.</p>
      <p>Hereafter, sedimentation is included in all simulations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS7">
  <title>Gravitational collection</title>
      <p>Hydrometeor growth from particle collisions is treated with the
semi-implicit method of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="text.78"/> on the master time step
of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.  The collection efficiency is given by the product
of collision and coalescence efficiencies per Eq. (6) of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="text.79"/>; for collisions with ice particles instead of
“coalescence efficiency” we refer to “sticking efficiency”.
The gravitational collision kernel is computed for hydrometeors
following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11 bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx13 bib1.bibx14" id="text.80"/>. The formulation
of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.81"/> is used for riming of columns or when the
maximum dimension of the larger particle is at least 10 times
greater than that of the smaller particle and the terminal fall
speed Reynolds number of the smaller particle is less than unity.
The coalescence efficiencies of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.82"/> for
self-collection of water drops are combined with those of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="text.83"/> for accretion, with a lower limit of 0.6 in
the size range between accretion and self-collection per
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.84"/> and only using their expression for
self-collection when the smaller particle diameter is greater than
200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  These coalescence efficiencies are blended
with those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="text.85"/> following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx65" id="text.86"/>.
Collision-induced breakup of water drops is based on
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.87"/>, incorporating corrections from
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx71" id="text.88"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="text.89"/>, and as an explicit
scheme is sub-stepped with a 0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> time step for
stability.  The sticking efficiency of collisions between water
drops and ice particles is assumed to be unity, and drop freezing
is treated as instantaneous.  Collisions between ice particles are
expected to be inefficient at the temperatures for which ice is
present in these parcel simulations, and are neglected by default
for our parcel simulations, but considered in sensitivity tests
discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS8"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Top panels as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>, except first panel is profile
of total aerosol number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), for simulations
with baseline updraft (red solid line) and additionally allowing
gravitational collection and raindrop breakup with parcel depths <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (blue dotted line), 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (green dashed line), and
500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (magenta dash-dotted line). Ice in top panels refers to fluffy
ice class only. Bottom panels are sedimentation efficiency for fluffy ice
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), fractional hydrometeor diffusional growth occurring as
vapor deposition on fluffy ice (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), saturation ratios with
respect to liquid water (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and ice (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, omitted for
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C), dense ice water content (IWC<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), and dense
ice PSD at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (vertical scale half that for fluffy ice).
Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f10.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>For simplicity, raindrops that freeze with equivalent spherical
diameter larger than 200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are treated as ice spheres
with the same mass but with the bulk density of ice
(0.92 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), referred to hereafter as dense ice to
distinguish it from the fluffier ice properties that are
consistent with agreement of Airbus PSD and IWC measurements, as
discussed in Sect. 3 of Part 1. Raindrop freezing can occur either through
IFN activation within a water drop or through coagulation of
a drop with an ice crystal of lesser mass. Sufficiently heavy
riming of a fluffy ice crystal is also assumed to contribute
a fraction of mass to dense ice following the approach of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.90"/>.  Below a cutoff size of 200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
maximum dimension, fluffy ice particles are assumed unable to
collect water drops, following the treatment of collisions between
plates and water drops by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.91"/>.  Various studies
support the existence of such a threshold size that is
habit-dependent, generally increasing with crystal branching, from
about 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for capped columns to about 800 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for dendrites <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.92"><named-content content-type="post">and references
therein</named-content></xref>. In the absence of a size cutoff, low
collision efficiencies on the order of 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are otherwise
computed, which could be reconcilable with threshold
interpretations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.93"/>; we remove the cutoff as
a sensitivity test that is discussed below.</p>
      <p>Using the described treatment for gravitational collection and
raindrop breakup leads to substantial loss of condensate mass and
substantially larger ice particles, as seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>.  Collision–coalescence dramatically reduces
water drop concentrations below the melting level. There is
a slight recovery from the initial dip in drop concentrations from
the activation of aerosol around 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude, but by
4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude the aerosol reservoir is depleted and
droplet concentrations continue their decline.  At about the same
level sedimentation by larger raindrops is already desiccating the
parcel (relative to the case without gravitational collection), at
temperatures warmer than the Hallett–Mossop range.  Subsequent ice
production glaciates the parcel with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by
about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C via collisions between ice splinters and
raindrops.  (We define glaciation throughout as the level at which
LWC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.)  While the number concentrations
of fluffy ice particles are about the same with and without
gravitational collection, their mass increases from diffusional
growth much more appreciably in the presence of gravitational
collection.  This increased diffusional growth results from
depletion of aerosols, droplets, and ultimately droplet surface
area that otherwise (in the absence of gravitational collection)
compete for vapor and limit the saturation ratio to little more
than unity.  The reduced competition for vapor is evident in the
profile of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, extended from Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) to
also include competition from dense ice (in the denominator).  In
the absence of gravitational collection, the competition for vapor
from condensation on water drops corresponds to greatly reduced
values of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below about 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude. It is
the lack of such competition that results in much greater fluffy
IWC at altitudes below the homogeneous freezing level for parcels
with gravitational acceleration. The lack of such competition is
also seen in the fluffy ice PSDs aloft to result in a mode of
vapor-grown ice that is substantially larger in terms of modal
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as total mass (corresponding to the area
under the curve in this PSD plotting convention).  The lack of
such vapor competition with supercooled water drops also
corresponds to the lack of a smaller mode in the fluffy ice PSD
aloft, which is attributable to homogeneous drop freezing in
the absence of gravitational collection.</p>
      <p>Gravitational collection is seen to result in substantial
supersaturations at levels above which the aerosol and then
droplets are depleted and below which there is sufficient surface
area of ice, corresponding to altitudes just below the melting
level to about 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> above it.  Notable supersaturations
above the melting level are also realized in CRM simulations of
deep convection, as discussed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="text.94"/> and in
references therein. As discussed below, entrainment of aerosol
serves to reduce these supersaturations substantially.
We note that breakup of raindrops contributes to the large supersaturations, as when
that process is omitted, sedimentation depletes LWC faster, fewer raindrops collect
smaller water drops, and more smaller water drops increase competition for water
vapor, thereby reducing supersaturations (not shown).</p>
      <p>The results are only mildly sensitive to an increase or decrease
by a factor of 2 in the parcel depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> used for
sedimentation.  Fluffy IWC at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C is seen to change
by less than 30 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in response to changing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by
a factor of 2 either way, and MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at that level
barely responds to such variations in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Perhaps the
greatest impact seen above the melting level induced by an
increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, corresponding to less efficient
sedimentation, is an increase in dense IWC, the primary source of
which is freezing of rain. Thus, less efficient sedimentation of
rain yields greater dense IWC.  Note that this dense ice, with
a fall speed of about 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at a particle diameter
of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>, would not be
expected to persist in anvil outflow, unlike the more slowly
falling fluffy ice.</p>
      <p>A so-called sedimentation efficiency, the inverse <italic>e</italic>-folding depth
of fluffy IWC from sedimentation: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>IWC</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is sedimentation flux of
fluffy ice and IWC<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> the fluffy IWC, is seen to respectively
increase and decrease by about a factor of 2 in response to
decreasing and increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at mid-levels, as expected
from its formulation. The tendency of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to increase
with height results not only from the increasing size of the
fluffy ice particles but also from an increase in terminal fall
speeds with decreasing air density.  Computing instead a combined
sedimentation efficiency for all hydrometeors (not shown), by
vertically averaging liquid-equivalent sedimentation fluxes <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mtext>LWC</mml:mtext><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>IWC</mml:mtext><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between cloud base and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, the resulting averages for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.5,
1, and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are approximately 0.25, 0.17, and
0.11 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the baseline updraft strength.  The
magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would be a challenge to constrain from
observations; we simply note that the vertical averages here
for all hydrometeors are comparable to the constant value of
0.15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="text.95"/>.  Their
approach considered a convective plume with simplified cloud and
precipitation microphysics, and their <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value was
empirically determined to produce reasonable results in the
context of their other model assumptions.  We assume
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for sedimentation hereafter.</p>
      <p>Scaling up the pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source strength affects
little other than the number concentration, size, and fluffy IWC.  As
seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>, a greater number of ice splinters
results in smaller ice particles aloft, which would be expected if
a fixed IWC were simply distributed over a greater number of ice
particles.  However, smaller ice particles fall more slowly and
thus there is a modest sedimentation feedback in that somewhat
more IWC is lofted when their numbers are so increased.</p>
      <p>Note that if 350 ice splinters are produced from 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of
accreted rime, as discussed above, a pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source
of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would require riming nearly
3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of supercooled water, equivalent to more than
half the LWC at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the baseline updraft.
A source of 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would require riming all the
supercooled water in the baseline updraft, which can be considered
an upper limit on the pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source.</p>
      <p>Given the overlap with the measured PSD mode at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn>300</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the simulation with
a pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we next
vary the updraft strength using that pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source
strength.  As seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>, the baseline updraft
best matches the observed ice PSD aloft.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><caption><p>Particle size distributions of fluffy ice at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for
simulations as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> with parcel depth
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and pseudo-Hallett–Mossop sources of 1 (red solid
line), 2 (blue dotted line), and 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green dashed line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f11.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In the case of the strong updraft, the parcel reaches the melting
level before there is enough time for warm rain to
deplete the parcel of liquid water.  Glaciation is delayed until
about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, at which point frozen raindrops
predominantly produce dense ice.  Competition for vapor with water
drops and then the dense ice, as evident in the reduced values of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, reduces the diffusional growth of fluffy ice
relative to the baseline and weak updrafts, resulting in
substantially less fluffy IWC aloft and smaller MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
for the strong updraft.</p>
      <p>In Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/> it was noted that the greater time of
ascent in weaker updrafts provided for greater diffusional growth
of fluffy ice particles.  In the absence of gravitational
collection, parcels were saturated with respect to liquid water
and, not coincidentally, supercooled water was present all the way
to the homogeneous freezing level, as seen in Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>
and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>.  In that limiting case, a longer ascent time
provides a longer exposure to water saturation, and thus ascent
time is a leading factor determining diffusional growth of ice.
When gravitational collection is included, however, the limiting
behavior of all parcels maintaining water saturation up to the
homogeneous freezing level is no longer realized. Instead the
updraft-strength dependence of fluffy ice diffusional growth
relates primarily to competition for vapor.  When gravitational
collection is included, perhaps the most direct effect of greater
ascent time in weaker updrafts is that it provides more time for
the warm rain process to deplete LWC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Panels and processes as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> with parcel depth
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source of
2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and baseline updraft strength scaled by factors of
0.5 (red solid line), 1.0 (blue dotted line), and 1.5 (green dashed line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f12.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The fluffy ice PSD aloft is seen to be prominently bimodal for the
weak updraft. Earlier times in the evolution of hydrometeor PSDs
(not shown) reveal that the larger mode forms on early
Hallett–Mossop splinters, which form during supersaturated
conditions in the weak updraft because collision–coalescence has
time to sweep out all cloud droplets.  The early splinters thus
grow rapidly enough from vapor for the latent heat release to warm
the parcel, delaying temperature-dependent production of further
splinters until the parcel cools enough from adiabatic
expansion. The smaller ice particle mode forms on those later
splinters.  While this production of a bimodal fluffy ice PSD
makes sense in terms of the model physics, the treatment of
Hallett–Mossop ice production in the parcel model is rather
contrived to overcome a lack of riming graupel particles entering
the parcel from above. In nature or in a more realistic modeling
framework there may well be other feedbacks that render such
a bimodal feature an artifact of our parcel framework.</p>
      <p>Although the focus of this study is the fluffy ice expected to
persist in convective outflow, we note that the IWC of dense ice
is seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/> to increase with updraft
strength, from sedimentation of raindrops first and then of the dense ice that results from raindrops freezing.</p>
      <p>As mentioned earlier, by default we assume that water drops are
not collected by fluffy ice with a maximum dimension less than
200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If we relax that assumption and instead use our
computed collision efficiencies, the only notable change for the
baseline updraft (not shown) is the parcel glaciates at about
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C instead of about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C when we impose
the size cutoff. The warmer glaciation corresponds to dense ice
appearing about 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> lower than in the baseline case, but
fall speeds for raindrops and dense ice are comparable and there
is little difference in results colder than about
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS8">
  <title>Ice–ice collisions</title>
      <p>With gravitational collection included, if we allow collisions
between fluffy ice particles with a sticking efficiency of 0.015,
the results (not shown) are indistinguishable from those in which
such collisions are ignored. The value of 0.015 represents rather
aggressive ice aggregation in 1-D column simulations described in
Sect. 5 of Part 1 and in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS10"/> below.  While
such a sticking efficiency results in substantial ice aggregation
in the column simulations, the timescale over which collisions
modify the ice PSD is about 2 orders of magnitude smaller in an
updraft parcel framework; for stratiform precipitation the
relevant speed for the transit timescale is set by ice particle
terminal fall speeds on the order of 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> while in the
parcel it is set by the updraft speed on the order of
10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>If we instead follow <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64" id="text.96"/> and use
a temperature-dependent sticking efficiency of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is air temperature in degrees Celsius, the resulting
fluffy ice particles do become larger in the baseline updraft,
with MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 380 instead of 310 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, but the fluffy IWC is unchanged (not
shown). However, our 1-D column simulations suggest that such
a sticking efficiency formulation is implausibly aggressive, as
discussed below in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS10"/>.
Although there are reasons to expect aggregation to be more efficient at
warmer temperatures, the observational basis for such an exponential dependence
is unclear and current literature offers no alternative forms
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.97"/>.</p>
      <p>Given a null result in permitting collisions between fluffy ice
particles with a plausible sticking efficiency in terms of our
modeling frameworks, we neglect such collisions hereafter.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Panels and processes as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> for baseline updraft,
with pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red solid
line), and without pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source but with
1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of immersion-mode IFN and freezing-induced drop
shattering with net multiplication factors of 5 (blue dotted line) and 50
(green dashed line). Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f13.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS9">
  <title>Shattering of freezing drops</title>
      <p>We next consider the ice-multiplication process of some drops
shattering during freezing.  We follow <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.98"/> and
allow ice splinters to form when a water drop larger than
50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in diameter collides with a smaller ice particle
(with maximum dimension no greater than half the drop diameter)
limited to temperatures between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. We
allow <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> splinters to form for 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of
such collisions, resulting in a net multiplication factor of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.25</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="altparen.99"/> and
references therein for further description; note that for
simplicity we adjust <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> so that the splinters
formed fit evenly into one bin, which amounts to a miniscule
adjustment for a grid with 150 bins).  So as not to combine ice-multiplication processes but instead evaluate them separately,
for the simulations with drop shattering we omit the
pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source and instead revert to immersion
freezing IFN as described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS4"/>, at
a concentration of 1 std <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or 100 times that of the
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.100"/> parameterization.</p>
      <p>With a net multiplication factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the
freezing-induced drop shattering is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/> to produce substantially more fluffy IWC
than for simulations lacking it and a number of other processes,
as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>. However, the number
concentration of fluffy ice particles is quite small (off scale
in the figure) and the fluffy MMD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> aloft is nearly
1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, substantially larger than the Airbus
target. Increasing that net multiplication factor tenfold is seen
to produce results closer to those with a pseudo-Hallett–Mossop
source of 2 std <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but without drop shattering. The
fluffy ice PSD aloft is seen to be monomodal with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but
the development of a second mode is suggested by a shoulder for
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the latter the mode of smaller particles
corresponds to shattering of water drops grown from diffusional
growth and the mode of larger
particles to shattering of raindrops grown from
collision–coalescence, and in subsequent diffusional growth the
small ice particles do not catch up with the larger ones despite
their faster relative growth.  In contrast there is greater
diffusional growth of ice particles with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
fewer ice particles, and because of less ice surface area and
greater supersaturations, the smaller do catch up
with the larger particles, producing a single size mode by
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
      <p>A net multiplication factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is substantially greater than
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the maximum value supported by published laboratory
studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.101"><named-content content-type="pre">cf.</named-content></xref>. However, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="text.102"/> recently combined
microphysics measurements obtained within tropical cumulus clouds with a column
model to derive an implied secondary ice particle production rate from drop
shattering of 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of freezing drops
<fn id="Ch1.Footn1"><p>Note that on p. 2442 of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="text.103"/>, the optimized fragmentation
factor should be <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> instead of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
as published (Paul Lawson, personal communication, 2015).</p></fn>,
which is about 3 times the Hallett–Mossop rate of 350 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (as
discussed in Sec. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS5"/>). Whereas their model is initialized with primary
ice particles based on measurements, here primary ice particles are produced by
IFN activation, for which we assume an abundance 100 times that of the
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.104"/> parameterization; to the extent that a secondary source such
as Hallett–Mossop rime splintering is also active, the required IFN abundance
could be reduced. Although a pseudo-Hallett–Mossop source is used in the remainder
of this study for convenience, possible alternatives include abundant IFN
combined with copious drop shattering during freezing (with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sh</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>≫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
or some other multiplication process.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS10">
  <title>Entrainment</title>
      <p>As discussed in Part 1, high IWC–low <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions
are evidently prevalent in mature convection with developed
stratiform precipitation characteristic of the Airbus
measurements. So far we have ignored any mixing with environmental
air, which we address next.  We treat entrainment as a source term
for each prognostic variable <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>env</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is updraft speed, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> entrainment rate in units
of reciprocal distance, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>env</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the environmental
value of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> linearly interpolated to altitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
prognostic variables subject to entrainment are potential
temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, and aerosol and hydrometeor
concentrations in each size bin; heterogeneous IFN and potential
pseudo-Hallett–Mossop embryos are not subject to entrainment.</p>
      <p>Being difficult at best to constrain through observation, we base
our entrainment rates on CRM studies of deep tropical convection.
In a study of the transition from shallow to deep maritime
convection, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="text.105"/> reported vertical mass fluxes
to be dominated by plumes with effective <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">≲</mml:mi><mml:mn> 0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in their deep cumulus regime. In a study
of more intense, continental convection during a monsoon break
period, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="text.106"/> reported the deepest ascent to be
associated with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in their
control simulations, and tending toward larger values aloft, up to
0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in simulations with higher resolution.  They
suggest such strong entrainment rates might be reconcilable with
those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="text.107"/> by virtue of continental
convection being more intense than maritime convection. Finally,
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="text.108"/> consider convection driven by a surface heating
source on the order of 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> across and report a dominant
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≃</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the cumulus congestus
regime they simulated in 3-D, while noting that for the strongest
updrafts <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is reduced, falling to
0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Focused on a deep cumulus regime for maritime
conditions, we use a vertically uniform
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as our baseline, but consider
greater <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in sensitivity tests.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><caption><p>Profiles of Rayleigh-regime equivalent radar reflectivity factor
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, left), mean Doppler velocity (MDV, center), and total
hydrometeor condensed water content LWC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> IWC (right) observed in
stratiform region of mesoscale convective system during TWP-ICE through two
different periods, labeled with times as decimal day of year UTC (magenta and
red solid lines), and from steady-state column simulations using sticking
efficiencies for collisions between fluffy ice particles of 0.01 (blue dashed
lines), 0.015 (blue dotted lines), and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> air temperature in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (blue dash-dotted line).
Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f14.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Here we use steady-state results from 1-D column simulations of
stratiform precipitation as described in Sect. 5 of Part 1 as a mixing
environment for parcels. In these column simulations the Airbus
measurement target serves as upper boundary condition for fluffy
ice and the profiles of temperature and water vapor mixing ratio
are from TWP-ICE soundings during the passage of the MCS on
23 January 2006. Instead of using the column model solution from
Sect. 5 of Part 1 with 50 size bins, we use 150 bins to match our parcel
configuration, and as in Sect. 5 of Part 1 compare our results with S-band
profiles of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean Doppler velocity (MDV) from
TWP-ICE.  (Note that there are no mixed-phase particles in the
model so there is no possibility of a bright band.)  A uniform
sticking efficiency of 0.01 is seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F14"/> to
reasonably match <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> above the melting level.
A uniform sticking efficiency of 0.015 is seen to better match
observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below the melting level and MDV
throughout the column, but produces excessive <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
above.  The temperature-dependent sticking efficiency from
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.109"/> as adopted by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64" id="text.110"/>, which yields
a sticking efficiency already greater than 0.025 at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, is seen in to result in excessive
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> throughout the column and MDV below the melting
level roughly 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> greater than observed.  Primarily
concerned with entrainment of ice above the melting level, we use
column model results derived with a sticking efficiency of 0.01
for the entrainment environment.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Processes and panels as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>, except first panel
is profile of total aerosol number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), for
simulations with baseline updraft (red solid line) and additionally
entraining environmental air from the steady-state column simulation with
entrainment rates of 0.1 (blue dotted line) and 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green
dashed line). Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f15.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Weak entrainment is seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/> to reduce
LWC below the melting level, and stronger entrainment reduces LWC
even more, owing to LWC in the entrained stratiform precipitation
being less than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is less than that in
the parcel above about 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude.  Parcel simulations
that entrain the same environment but without hydrometeors also
reduce LWC comparably (not shown).  Glaciation starts a bit lower
in the ascent of the parcel with stronger entrainment, since ice
reaches the melting level in the environment. However, both
entraining parcels are seen to loft supercooled water higher than
the non-entraining parcel: the non-entraining parcel glaciates
near <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and the entraining parcels near
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. This lofting of supercooled water, which also
occurs in parcels that entrain the environment with no
hydrometeors (not shown), results from the rapid activation of
droplets on any entrained aerosol above the melting level, seen in
the enhanced water drop concentrations, which quenches the
supersaturation that otherwise develops below the Hallett–Mossop
level.  Thus, although the entraining parcels entrain ice from the
environment, fluffy IWC in the non-entraining parcel is greater in
the first few kilometers above the melting level because of
greater diffusional growth of splinters caused by the much greater
supersaturation at those levels. At colder temperatures fluffy IWC
in the parcel with stronger entrainment surpasses that of the
non-entraining parcel primarily from entrainment of environmental
ice, seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F14"/> to exceed 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
above the melting level and to increase upward.</p>
      <p>The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C level occurs at a lower level than for the
non-entraining parcel, by about 700 and 900 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for parcels
entraining at 0.1 and 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, primarily attributable
to entrained air being colder than the parcel.  The fluffy ice
PSDs for the entraining parcels are seen to be comprised of (1) a broad mode corresponding to the entrained ice, populated at
larger sizes in the column through aggregation, and (2) a narrow
mode from diffusional growth of pseudo-Hallett–Mossop splinters.
The narrow mode of fluffy ice diminishes in total mass and modal
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is increased; increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
to 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is enough to effectively eliminate the
narrow mode (not shown).  The decreases in both the mass and modal
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the narrow mode result from a reduction in
diffusional growth of pseudo-Hallett–Mossop splinters from
decreased supersaturation and associated greater vapor competition
in the first few kilometers above the melting level for the
entraining parcels.  Ultimately it is therefore entrainment of
environmental aerosol that leads to the smaller modal
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the narrow mode in the fluffy ice PSD aloft,
a point we shall revisit below.</p>
      <p>For weakly entraining parcels the modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
narrow mode of the fluffy ice mass PSD aloft is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F16"/> to decrease with increasing updraft
strength, attributable to increased competition with water drops
and then dense ice, as evident in the profile of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>vap</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS7"/> for non-entraining
parcels.  The broad mode of entrained ice is largely unresponsive
to changes in updraft strength, explained to first approximation
by the entrainment source being independent of updraft speed:
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>env</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  That is, the degree to which a stronger updraft in this
framework entrains more rapidly is canceled by the shorter time
over which the entrainment occurs.  The response of entraining
parcels to changes in updraft strength is insensitive to modest
changes in entrainment, insofar as the response is comparable for
parcels with twice the baseline entrainment rate (not shown).</p>
      <p>For weakly entraining parcels, the modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
narrow mode in the fluffy ice mass PSD aloft is seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F17"/> to decrease with increasing numbers of
pseudo-Hallett–Mossop splinters, attributable to increased
competition for vapor among ice particles. The greater fluffy IWC
aloft is consistent with slower sedimentation for the smaller ice
particles.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Processes and panels as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>, for
simulations with entrainment rate of 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and baseline updraft strength scaled by factors of 0.5 (red solid line), 1.0 (blue dotted line),
and 1.5 (green dashed line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f16.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17"><caption><p>Particle size distributions of fluffy ice at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for
simulations as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F16"/> with baseline updraft and
pseudo-Hallett–Mossop sources of 1 (red solid line), 2 (blue dotted line),
and 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green dashed line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f17.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS11">
  <title>Ice properties</title>
      <p>So far we have treated ice as spheres with a mass-dimensional
relation from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.111"/> for aggregates of unrimed
radiating assemblages of plates, side planes, bullets, and columns
(see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS2"/>).  A slight variation is to use the
same mass-dimensional relation but instead of spheres treat the
particles as oblate spheroids, done by numerically inverting the
dependence of randomly projected cross sectional area on spheroid
volume to determine the dependence of particle aspect ratio on
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The particle geometries are then used in the
capacitance shape factors for diffusional growth as well as for
terminal fall speeds. For a given ice volume an oblate spheroid
falling with its axis of rotation parallel to the flow falls
slower than a sphere, as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>.  This
reduction has very little impact on parcel simulations that
include gravitational collection (not shown).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F18"><caption><p>Fluffy ice size distributions at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for simulations
as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F16"/> but with fluffy ice treated as plates.
Details provided in text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f18.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>However, the mass-dimensional relation used for spheres and oblate
spheroids corresponds to rather large densities for vapor-grown
ice particles.  As an alternative we treat fluffy ice particles
with a maximum dimension greater than 15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as hexagonal
plates by adopting the area- and mass-dimensional relations of
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx56" id="text.112"/> and treating them as spheres at smaller
sizes.  Terminal fall speeds are seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/> to be
substantially reduced for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from tens to hundreds of
micrometers. This reduction in fall speeds does impact our
results, if subtly; although profiles are little affected (not
shown) it is seen by comparing Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F16"/> and
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F18"/> that there is some effect on the fluffy ice PSDs
aloft.  The changes are principally attributable to particle
geometry alone, in which <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of such a plate is
somewhat greater than for a fluffy sphere in our baseline
treatment.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F19" specific-use="star"><caption><p>As in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F16"/>, except first panel is profile of
total aerosol number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), for simulations with
initial and entrained aerosol number concentrations scaled by factors of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red solid line), 1 (blue dotted line), and 25 (green dashed line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f19.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS12">
  <title>Aerosol population</title>
      <p>A multiplicity of variations in aerosol populations are possible,
including any of the parameters characterizing the initial
multimodal size distribution in the parcel and assumed chemical
composition, as well the vertical profile of aerosol entrained by
the parcel.  Here we merely decrease and increase initial aerosol
number concentrations in all three modes by a factor of 25, in
both the initial condition of the parcel and in the environment.
These aerosol changes are seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F19"/> to
induce respective decreases and increases of less than a factor of
10 in cloud droplet number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) near cloud base.
This less than linear response of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to changing aerosol number
concentrations results from a negative feedback in which
increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to increased total droplet surface area,
which quenches peak supersaturations and thereby increases the
size of the smallest aerosol activated near cloud base
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx70 bib1.bibx1" id="paren.113"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>.  The effects of such
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on warm rain process are seen to be modest in
entraining parcels.  The parcel with access to the fewest aerosol
particles is seen to become depleted in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> well below the
melting level, leading to greatly enhanced supersaturation and
greater diffusional growth of ice splinters when they appear,
which in turn results in a narrow mode of fluffy ice aloft that
has more mass and a greater modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>Entrainment serves to buffer the response of the parcel to changes
in aerosol number concentration, as non-entraining parcels respond
in the same sense but with a greater magnitude of change to the
fluffy ice PSD aloft, as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F20"/>.
In the parcel with access to the most aerosol particles, the so-inhibited warm rain process barely affects the LWC profile below
the melting level, which is thus nearly adiabatic
(cf. Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). Fewer aerosol particles result in fewer
droplets and less LWC, which both contribute to less competition
for vapor by supercooled water, and thus fluffy IWC and the modal
size of the dominant mode of fluffy ice PSD aloft increase with
decreasing aerosol numbers.  The bimodal PSD aloft for the
non-entraining parcel with the fewest aerosol particles is similar
to that discussed above for a non-entraining parcel in a weak
updraft (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS7"/>), in which lack of droplet
surface area leads to enough diffusional growth on the first
splinters to warm the parcel and delay further production of
splinters, which come to comprise the smaller of the two modes
aloft.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F20" specific-use="star"><caption><p>As in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F19"/> but for non-entraining parcels.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11729/2015/acp-15-11729-2015-f20.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS13">
  <title>Cloud base</title>
      <p>Reducing initial relative humidity of the parcel from 98 to
80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> raises cloud base from about 600 to 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(not shown). Since the updraft speed increases with altitude at
those levels, such an increase in cloud base results in an
increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increase is
far less substantial than that induced by increasing aerosol
numbers by a factor of 25, and does not persist above the
Hallett–Mossop zone, where entrained aerosol greatly influence
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Thus, the changes induced aloft are minimal in
response to a rather substantial increase in cloud-base altitude
within this modeling framework.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>The Airbus flight-test measurements were obtained in a limited
number of flights in maritime deep tropical convection with
instrumentation having poorly characterized limitations and
uncertainties (see Sect. 3 of Part 1).  Results from the ongoing HAIC-HIWC
field campaigns, with more robust and redundant instrumentation
flown through a more extensive sample of deep tropical convection,
should help to establish the extent to which the Airbus
flight-test measurements are valid and not uncommon.</p>
      <p>The predominant mass contribution of ice particles with sizes of
a few hundred micrometers in the Airbus flights is generally
consistent with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.114"/> using
different instrumentation and flying through deep tropical
convection elsewhere in the tropics, though they cast their PSDs
in terms of maximum particle dimension instead of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
In their conceptual model these ice particles form through
heterogeneous ice nucleation at temperatures colder than
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and then grow from vapor; however, the implied
concentrations of IFN are not documented, and no mention is made
of ice multiplication. In our parcel simulations we also find that
ice formation at warm temperatures, around <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, is
required to account for observed ice PSDs aloft, but we find that
the required number concentrations of IFN are far in excess of
measurements.  With the absence of an ice-multiplication source, our results
are consistent with a heterogeneous ice source at warm
temperatures that is 5000 times greater than in the
parameterization of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.115"/>.  Another possibility in our
parcel simulations is a sizable Hallett–Mossop ice splinter
source, equivalent to riming about half of the available
supercooled water, or alternatively a combination of abundant IFN
and copious drop shattering during freezing. Notwithstanding, we note that an ice-multiplication
source for maritime conditions might be consistent with ice residuals containing sea
salt, sulfate, and organic constituents. For the TC4 and CRYSTAL-FACE campaigns
respectively such constituents comprise 34 and 47 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of residuals inferred as
heterogeneous freezing nuclei <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.116"><named-content content-type="post">their Table S1</named-content></xref>. It is not
inconceivable that better sampling of crystals larger than 75 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
diameter <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.117"/> might alter such statistics.</p>
      <p>Compared to the limitations of the measurements that comprise the
observational target of this study, the shortcomings of our parcel
framework present as great if not greater limitations.  The parcel
framework we consider is strictly for a deep convective updraft,
but we compare its results with measurements thought to be more
representative of a transitional regime between areas of
convective and stratiform precipitation, as discussed in
Sect. 2 of Part 1. Our parcel simulations that include
gravitational
collection include two ice classes, corresponding roughly to (1) less dense ice produced by ice nucleation and predominantly grown
from vapor diffusion and (2) dense ice produced by freezing of
raindrops and predominantly grown by riming. This latter class
corresponds to graupel and hail, and we very crudely mimic
a transition out of the convective cores by simply ignoring the
dense ice when comparing with the measurements. Thus, any size
sorting that might occur over the time between detrainment of
convective air and its sampling in the transition region is
missing from our parcel framework.  However, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="text.118"/>
offer some evidence of similarity between updraft and outflow
PSDs; measurements from the HAIC-HIWC campaigns should shed
additional light.</p>
      <p>There are other obvious simplifications in a parcel
framework. A lack of graupel entering the parcel from above
stymies a natural representation of the Hallett–Mossop process,
which we emulate instead by introducing an adjustable number of
ice splinters over the Hallett–Mossop temperature range, and our
results are sensitive to the number of splinters produced, as seen
in Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F17"/>. It is
noteworthy that the concentrations of splinters so produced would
require riming a substantial fraction of the available supercooled
water.</p>
      <p>Our simplistic treatment of the Hallett–Mossop process bypasses
any dependence on such parameters as LWC and duration spent in the
Hallett–Mossop temperature range, both found to be critical to the
overall production rate of splinters in a modeling study by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="text.119"/>. Such dependence might contribute to
feedbacks that explain the self-similarity of the ice PSDs
measured by Airbus and discussed in Sect. 3 of Part 1. For instance, here we find
that weaker updrafts favor greater mass and larger modal diameter
of the dominant mass mode of fluffy ice aloft. While we find
that an ice-multiplication source at warm temperatures is required
to provide a narrow mode of fluffy ice aloft, increasing that
multiplication source strength leads to smaller modal diameter for
those ice particles. Thus, there may be an optimal range of
updraft strengths that provide moderately sized, vapor-grown ice
particles, in which the updrafts are weak enough to lose enough of
their LWC via warm rain to not compete with vapor growth of ice,
but not so slow that the duration spent in a temperature range
conducive to ice multiplication generates so much small ice as to
provide too much vapor competition to produce moderately sized ice
particles through diffusional growth. Instead of trying to wedge
the required assumptions into our parcel framework, which lacks
graupel entering from above, we defer pursuit of such speculation
to simulations in a more realistic modeling framework.</p>
      <p>The representation of sedimentation in a parcel also suffers from
a lack of hydrometeors entering the parcel from above, as the
parcel only treats sedimentation losses but not sources.
Furthermore, our treatment of sedimentation losses requires
specification of a vertical length scale that we identify as
parcel depth.  A factor of 4 variation in that depth does not
impact results substantially, as seen in results without rain in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>.  Sensitivity of results to assumed parcel
depth in entraining parcels (not shown) is muted relative to those
without entrainment, as is sensitivity to other parameters.</p>
      <p>Treatment of entrainment by the parcel requires profiles of not
only entrainment rate but also the environment to be
entrained. Doubling the assumed vertically uniform entrainment
rate unsurprisingly results in solutions that more resemble the
entrained environment, as seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>.
We consider only one environment to entrain, namely the
steady-state solution to a 1-D column simulation of stratiform
precipitation. While such a sample of one is admittedly small, at
least it is internally consistent with the observational target in
terms of our model microphysics. We only consider one sounding of
temperature and water vapor here, and limit our variety of initial
thermodynamic conditions to varying the initial parcel relative
humidity. We also use a single, multimodal aerosol profile from
measurements during the TWP-ICE field campaign, and the only
variation we consider is to simply scale it uniformly.</p>
      <p>Another limitation is treating parcels as spatially homogeneous,
which may lead to behaviors in non-entraining parcels that are
questionable, such as warming of a rising parcel from rapid
diffusional growth on early ice splinters in some special cases,
shutting off production until further adiabatic cooling achieves
Hallett–Mossop temperatures again, as seen in Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>
and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F20"/>.</p>
      <p>Further limitations are imposed by the specifics of a single
microphysics model: how size distributions are discretized and the
representation and numerical treatments of any number of
processes.</p>
      <p>We also bypass buoyancy-based computation of updraft speeds,
simply imposing profiles of updraft speed using remote-sensing
measurements in one monsoonal MCS. This approach misses possible
influences of microphysics on dynamics, which could be considered
an advantage in terms of simplifying interpretation.  But the
profile of updraft speed we use is subjected to the limitations of
the retrieval method and the representativeness of the conditions
sampled <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="paren.120"><named-content content-type="pre">see</named-content></xref>.  As a stab at exploring the
sensitivity of our results to the specified updraft speed profile,
we do consider variations by simply scaling the strength of our
baseline updraft.</p>
      <p>For all the simplifications of our parcel framework, the system is
not wanting for complexity of behavior. In our pursuit of an
explanation for a mode of ice particles between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
200 and 300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that dominate mass distributions
measured in the Airbus flight tests, we have identified processes
that merit further scrutiny in a more realistic modeling
framework.  Perhaps the greatest among them is ice multiplication at
warm temperatures, whether through riming-induced splinter
production or some other mechanism, such as drop shattering during
freezing. The degree to which entrainment by updrafts suppresses
the impact of new ice formation is also of interest. Perhaps more
mundane but not lacking in influence are ice properties:
mass-dimensional and area-dimensional relations, as well as
particle geometry. These ice properties determine not only shape
factors for diffusional growth, a detail treated in our model
though overlooked in the analysis here, but also terminal fall
speeds, likely to be even more important in convective outflow
where particle lifetimes are greater.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>As discussed in Part 1, in situ measurements were obtained during
Airbus flight tests in maritime deep tropical convection outflow,
characterized as a transitional regime between convective cores
and areas of stratiform precipitation.  Those measurements indicate
that ice particle size distributions (PSDs) in conditions of high
ice water content (IWC) and low equivalent radar reflectivity
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), at temperatures where there is no evidence for
supercooled water, are dominated in terms of mass by particles
with area-equivalent diameters (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between about 200
and 300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Simulations run to steady state with a 1-D
column model using measured ice PSDs as an upper boundary
condition suggest that the measurements are broadly consistent
with Doppler radar observations of areas of stratiform
precipitation during passage of a mesoscale convective system
during the TWP-ICE field campaign.</p>
      <p>The objective of this study is explanation of the notably narrow
dominant mass mode of ice PSDs measured aloft (at around
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) based on a parcel modeling framework.  While we
do not derive a single explanation, our findings do provide
a number of clues, as summarized here.  (In simulations that
include gravitational collection the model includes two ice
classes, one that is predominantly vapor-grown and the focus of
the following discussion.)
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p>Homogeneous freezing of water drops produces a mass mode in the
ice PSD aloft at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, generally
consistent with an upturn in the measured ice PSDs at those sizes,
but only in simulations that neglect hydrometeor gravitational
collection; otherwise, water drops do not reach homogeneous freezing
temperatures.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>A source of small ice particles at temperatures of about
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C or warmer provides sufficient time for diffusional
growth to produce a narrow, substantial mass mode in the ice PSD
aloft with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of a few hundred micrometers as in the
measurements.  Such a growth mode is consistent with an abundance of
vapor-grown ice habits in the measurements, capped columns being
commonly present in particle imagery.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Entrainment of ice produces a broad mode aloft that is
superposed with narrow mass mode of vapor-grown ice formed in the
parcel at warmer temperatures.  The mass contribution and modal
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the narrow mode diminish with increasing
entrainment.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the vapor-grown ice mode aloft
decreases with an increasing source of small ice particles,
consistent with diffusional growth being limited by competition
between particles.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The total mass and modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the narrow mode of
vapor-grown ice are greater for weaker updrafts, providing more time
for warm rain to deplete a parcel of liquid water. Fewer
drops and less liquid water (and later, reduced loading of dense
ice) present less competition for the vapor-grown ice.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The total mass and modal <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the dominant narrow
mode in ice mass PSDs aloft diminish with increasing aerosol
concentration, from a less efficient warm rain process that results
in more competition for the vapor-grown ice.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p>Perhaps the most important result is that ice production at warm
temperatures is required to produce vapor-grown ice of the sizes
measured in convective outflow.  Perhaps the most surprising
result is that weaker updrafts lead to greater mass and larger
modal diameter of the dominant mass mode of vapor-grown ice
aloft, which is just the opposite of expectations regarding
lofting of larger ice particles in stronger updrafts. Those
expectations do apply to dense ice that are primarily the product
of raindrop freezing. However, in terms of the less dense ice
expected to persist in convective outflow, the slower ascent time
in weaker updrafts allows the warm rain process to drive greater
desiccation, which results in less competition (from water drops
and dense ice) for diffusional growth of vapor-grown ice.</p>
      <p>As discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>, our contrived
treatment of ice multiplication omits any dependence on the time
spent in the temperature range conducive to ice
multiplication. We speculate that such a dependence might select
for an optimal range of updraft strengths: those that are weak
enough to lose enough of the liquid water to the warm rain
process to reduce competition with ice for vapor growth, but not
so weak that the time spent at ice-multiplication temperatures
produces so many ice splinters that vapor competition prevents
their diffusional growth from reaching moderate sizes aloft.</p>
      <p>As stated above, results from the ongoing HAIC-HIWC field
campaigns are expected to shed light on the validity and
generality of these Airbus measurements, and these parcel
simulations can provide guidance and speculations for
cloud-resolving model simulations targeting the upcoming
measurements.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>TWP-ICE soundings and S-band radar data were obtained from the Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research,
Climate and Environmental Sciences Division. C-POL radar measurements and
retrieval products were supplied by Peter May, Centre for Australian Weather
and Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The authors thank
Thomas Ratvasky and Renato Colantonio for logistical and programmatic
assistance, and Jeanne Mason, Matthew Grzych, Alain Protat, and Alfons Schwarzenböck for valuable discussions and Airbus for providing their
flight-test measurements. This work was supported by the NASA Aviation Safety
Program's Atmospheric Environment Safety Technologies Project.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: T. Garrett</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Abdul-Razzak et al.(1998)Abdul-Razzak, Ghan, and
Rivera-Carpio</label><mixed-citation>
Abdul-Razzak, H., Ghan, S. J., and Rivera-Carpio, C.: A parameterization of
aerosol activation: 1. Single aerosol type, J. Geophys. Res., 103,
6123–6131, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Ackerman et al.(1995)Ackerman, Toon, and Hobbs</label><mixed-citation>
Ackerman, A. S., Toon, O. B., and Hobbs, P. V.: A model for particle
microphysics, turbulent mixing, and radiative transfer in the
stratocumulus-topped marine boundary layer and comparisons with
measurements, J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 1204–1236, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Avramov et al.(2011)Avramov, Ackerman, Fridlind, van Diedenhoven, Botta, Aydin, Verlinde, Korolev, Strapp, McFarquhar et al.</label><mixed-citation>Avramov, A., Ackerman, A. S., Fridlind, A. M., van Diedenhoven, B.,
Botta, G., Aydin, K., Verlinde, J., Korolev, A. V., Strapp, J. W.,
McFarquhar, G. M., Jackson, R., Brooks, S. D., Glen, A., and Wolde, M.:
Toward ice formation closure in Arctic mixed-phase boundary layer clouds
during ISDAC, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D00T08, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015910" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD015910</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bailey and Hallett(2009)</label><mixed-citation>Bailey, M. P. and Hallett, J.: A comprehensive habit diagram for atmospheric
ice crystals: confirmation from the laboratory, AIRS II, and other field
studies, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2888–2899,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS2883.1">10.1175/2009JAS2883.1</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Baumgardner et al.(2011)Baumgardner, Brenguier, Bucholtz, Coe, DeMott, Garrett, Gayet, Hermann, Heymsfield, Korolev, Krämer,
Petzold, Strapp, Pilewskie, Taylor, Twohy, Wendisch, Bachalo, and Chuang</label><mixed-citation>Baumgardner, D., Brenguier, J.-L., Bucholtz, A., Coe, H., DeMott, P.,
Garrett, T. J., Gayet, J. F., Hermann, M., Heymsfield, A., Korolev, A.,
Krämer, M., Petzold, A., Strapp, W., Pilewskie, P., Taylor, J.,
Twohy, C., Wendisch, M., Bachalo, W., and Chuang, P.: Airborne instruments
to measure atmospheric aerosol particles, clouds and radiation: a cook's tour
of mature and emerging technology, Atmos. Res., 102, 10–29,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.06.021">10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.06.021</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Beard and Ochs(1984)</label><mixed-citation>
Beard, K. V. and Ochs, H. T.: Collection and coalescence efficiencies for
accretion, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 7165–7169, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Beard and Ochs(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Beard, K. V. and Ochs, H. T.: Collisions between small precipitation drops.
Part II: Formulas for coalescence, temporary coalescence, and satellites, J.
Atmos. Sci., 52, 3977–3996, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Blyth and Latham(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Blyth, A. M. and Latham, J.: A multi-thermal model of cumulus glaciation via
the Hallett–Mossop process, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 123, 1185–1198, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Böhm(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, H.: A general equation for the terminal fall speed of solid
hydrometeors, J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 2419–2427, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Böhm(1992a)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, J. P.: A general hydrodynamic theory for mixed-phase microphysics.
Part I: Drag and fall speed of hydrometeors, Atmos. Res., 27, 253–274,
1992a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Böhm(1992b)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, J. P.: A general hydrodynamic theory for mixed-phase microphysics.
Part II: Collision kernels for coalescence, Atmos. Res., 27, 275–290, 1992b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Böhm(1992c)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, J. P.: A general hydrodynamic theory for mixed-phase microphysics.
Part III: Riming and aggregation, Atmos. Res., 28, 103–123, 1992c.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Böhm(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, J. P.: Theoretical collision efficiencies for riming and aerosol
impaction, Atmos. Res., 32, 171–187, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Böhm(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, J. P.: Revision and clarification of “A general hydrodynamic
theory for mixed-phase microphysics”, Atmos. Res., 52, 167–176, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Bravin et al.(2015)Bravin, Strapp, and Mason</label><mixed-citation>Bravin, M., Strapp, J. W., and Mason, J.: An investigation into location and
convective lifecycle trends in an ice crystal icing engine database, Tech.
rep., SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2130, SAE International, Warrendale,
Pennsylvania, USA,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-2130">10.4271/2015-01-2130</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Brown and Francis(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, P. R. A. and Francis, P. N.: Improved measurements of the ice water
content in cirrus using a total-water probe, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 12,
410–414, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Colella and Woodward(1984)</label><mixed-citation>
Colella, P. and Woodward, P. R.: The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for
gas-dynamical simulations, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174–201, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Connolly et al.(2012)Connolly, Vaughan, May, Chemel, Allen, Choularton, Gallagher, Bower, Crosier, and Dearden</label><mixed-citation>Connolly, P. J., Vaughan, G., May, P. T., Chemel, C., Allen, G.,
Choularton, T. W., Gallagher, M. W., Bower, K. N., Crosier, J., and
Dearden, C.: Can aerosols influence deep tropical convection? Aerosol
indirect effects in the Hector island thunderstorm, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
139, 2190–2208,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.2083">10.1002/qj.2083</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Crosier et al.(2011)Crosier, Bower, Choularton, Westbrook, Connolly, Cui, Crawford, Capes, Coe, Dorsey, Williams, Illingworth, Gallagher, and Blyth</label><mixed-citation>Crosier, J., Bower, K. N., Choularton, T. W., Westbrook, C. D., Connolly, P.
J., Cui, Z. Q., Crawford, I. P., Capes, G. L., Coe, H., Dorsey, J. R.,
Williams, P. I., Illingworth, A. J., Gallagher, M. W., and Blyth, A. M.:
Observations of ice multiplication in a weakly convective cell embedded in
supercooled mid-level stratus, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 257–273,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-257-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-257-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Cziczo and Froyd(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Cziczo, D. J. and Froyd, K. D.: Sampling the composition of cirrus ice
residuals, Atmos. Res., 142, 15–31,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.06.012">10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.06.012</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Cziczo et al.(2013)Cziczo, Froyd, Hoose, Jensen, Diao, Zondlo, Smith, Twohy, and Murphy</label><mixed-citation>Cziczo, D. J., Froyd, K. D., Hoose, C., Jensen, E. J., Diao, M.,
Zondlo, M. A., Smith, J. B., Twohy, C. H., and Murphy, D. M.: Clarifying the
dominant sources and mechanisms of cirrus cloud formation, Science, 340,
1320–1324,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1234145">10.1126/science.1234145</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Del Genio and Wu(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Del Genio, A. D. and Wu, J.: The role of entrainment in the diurnal cycle of
continental convection, J. Climate, 23, 2722–2738, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>DeMott et al.(2010)DeMott, Prenni, Liu, Kreidenweis, Petters, Twohy, Richardson, Eidhammer, and Rogers</label><mixed-citation>
DeMott, P. J., Prenni, A. J., Liu, X., Kreidenweis, S. M., Petters, M. D.,
Twohy, C. H., Richardson, M. S., Eidhammer, T., and Rogers, D. C.: Predicting
global atmospheric ice nuclei distributions and their impacts on climate, P.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 11217–11222, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Fridlind et al.(2007)Fridlind, Ackerman, McFarquhar, Zhang, Poellot, DeMott, Prenni, and Heymsfield</label><mixed-citation>Fridlind, A., Ackerman, A., McFarquhar, G., Zhang, G., Poellot, M.,
DeMott, P., Prenni, A., and Heymsfield, A.: Ice properties of single-layer
stratocumulus during the Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment: 2. Model
results, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24202, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008646" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008646</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Fridlind et al.(2012)Fridlind, Ackerman, Chaboureau, Fan, Grabowski, Hill, Jones, Khaiyer, Liu, Minnis, Morrison et al.</label><mixed-citation>Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Chaboureau, J.-P., Fan, J.,
Grabowski, W. W., Hill, A. A., Jones, T. R., Khaiyer, M. M., Liu, G.,
Minnis, P., Morrison, H., Nguyen, L., Park, S., Petch, J. C., Pinty, J.-P.,
Schumacher, C., Shipway, B., Varble, A. C., Wu, X., Xie, S., and Zhang, M.: A
comparison of TWP-ICE observational data with cloud-resolving model
results, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05204, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016595" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016595</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Fridlind et al.(2015)Fridlind, Ackerman, Grandin, Dezitter, Weber,
Strapp, Korolev, and Williams</label><mixed-citation>Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Grandin, A., Dezitter, F., Weber, M., Strapp, J. W., Korolev, A. V., and
Williams, C. R.: High ice water content at low radar reflectivity near deep
convection – Part 1: Consistency of in situ and remote-sensing observations
with stratiform rain column simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11713–11728, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11713-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-11713-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Gayet et al.(2014)Gayet, Shcherbakov, Bugliaro, Protat, Delanoë, Pelon, and Garnier</label><mixed-citation>Gayet, J.-F., Shcherbakov, V., Bugliaro, L., Protat, A., Delanoë, J.,
Pelon, J., and Garnier, A.: Microphysical properties and high ice water
content in continental and oceanic mesoscale convective systems and potential
implications for commercial aircraft at flight altitude, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
14, 899–912, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-899-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-899-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Grandin et al.(2014)Grandin, Merle, Weber, Strapp, Protat, and King</label><mixed-citation>Grandin, A., Merle, J.-M., Weber, M., Strapp, J., Protat, A., and King, P.:
AIRBUS flight tests in high total water content regions, in: 6th AIAA
Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, USA, 16–20 June 2014,
abstract number AIAA 2014-2753,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-2753">10.2514/6.2014-2753</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Grzych and Mason(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Grzych, M. L. and Mason, J. G.: Weather conditions associated with jet engine
power loss and damage due to ingestion of ice particles: What we've learned
through 2009, in: 14th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace
Meteorology, 17–21 January 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, abstract number 6.8,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Hallett and Mossop(1974)</label><mixed-citation>
Hallett, J. and Mossop, S.: Production of secondary ice particles during the
riming process, Nature, 249, 26–28, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Heymsfield and McFarquhar(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Heymsfield, A. J. and McFarquhar, G. M.: High albedos of cirrus in the
tropical Pacific warm pool: Microphysical interpretations from CEPEX and from
Kwajalein, Marshall islands, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 2424–2451, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Heymsfield et al.(2002)Heymsfield, Bansemer, Field, Durden, Stith, Dye, Hall, and Grainger</label><mixed-citation>
Heymsfield, A. J., Bansemer, A., Field, P., Durden, S., Stith, J., Dye, J.,
Hall, W., and Grainger, C.: Observations and parameterizations of particle
size distributions in deep tropical cirrus and stratiform precipitating
clouds: results from in situ observations in TRMM field campaigns, J. Atmos.
Sci., 59, 1–35, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Heymsfield et al.(2010)Heymsfield, Tian, Heymsfield, Li, and Guimond</label><mixed-citation>
Heymsfield, G. M., Tian, L., Heymsfield, A. J., Li, L., and Guimond, S.:
Characteristics of deep tropical and subtropical convection from
nadir-viewing high-altitude airborne Doppler radar, J. Atmos. Sci., 67,
285–308, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Jacobson et al.(1994)Jacobson, Turco, Jensen, and Toon</label><mixed-citation>
Jacobson, M. Z., Turco, R. P., Jensen, E. J., and Toon, O. B.: Modeling
coagulation among particles of different composition and size, Atmos.
Environ., 28, 1327–1338, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Jackson and McFarquhar(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Jackson, R. C. and McFarquhar, G. M.: An assessment of the impact of
antishattering tips and artifact removal techniques on bulk cloud ice
microphysical and optical properties measured by the 2D cloud probe, J.
Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 32 2131–2144,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00018.1">10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00018.1</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Jensen et al.(1998)Jensen, Toon, Tabazadeh, Sachse, Anderson, Chan, Twohy, Gandrud, Aulenbach, Heymsfield et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Jensen, E., Toon, O., Tabazadeh, A., Sachse, G., Anderson, B., Chan, K.,
Twohy, C., Gandrud, B., Aulenbach, S., Heymsfield, A., Hallett, J., and Gary,
B.: Ice nucleation processes in upper tropospheric wave-clouds observed
during SUCCESS, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 1363–1366, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Khain et al.(2004)Khain, Pokrovsky, Pinsky, Seifert, and Phillips</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A., Pokrovsky, A., Pinsky, M., Seifert, A., and Phillips, V.:
Simulation of effects of atmospheric aerosols on deep turbulent convective
clouds using a spectral microphysics mixed-phase cumulus cloud model. Part I:
Model description and possible applications, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 2963–2982,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAS-3350.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-3350.1</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Khain et al.(2008)Khain, Benmoshe, and Pokrovsky</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Benmoshe, N., and Pokrovsky, A.: Factors determining the impact
of aerosols on surface precipitation from clouds: an attempt at
classification, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1721–1748,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2515.1">10.1175/2007JAS2515.1</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Khain et al.(2012)Khain, Phillips, Benmoshe, and Pokrovsky</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Phillips, V., Benmoshe, N., and Pokrovsky, A.: The role of
small soluble aerosols in the microphysics of deep maritime clouds, J. Atmos.
Sci., 69, 2787–2807,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JAS3649.1">10.1175/2011JAS3649.1</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Kienast-Sjögren et al.(2013)Kienast-Sjögren, Spichtinger, and Gierens</label><mixed-citation>Kienast-Sjögren, E., Spichtinger, P., and Gierens, K.: Formulation and
test of an ice aggregation scheme for two-moment bulk microphysics schemes,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9021–9037, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9021-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-9021-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Korolev et al.(2013)Korolev, Emery, and Creelman</label><mixed-citation>Korolev, A., Emery, E., and Creelman, K.: Modification and tests of particle
probe tips to mitigate effects of ice shattering, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 30,
690–708,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00142.1">10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00142.1</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Korolev(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Korolev, A. V.: Rates of phase transformations in mixed-phase clouds, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 595–608, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Kuang and Bretherton(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Kuang, Z. and Bretherton, C. S.: A mass-flux scheme view of a high-resolution
simulation of a transition from shallow to deep cumulus convection, J. Atmos.
Sci., 63, 1895–1909, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Lawson et al.(1998)Lawson, Angus, and Heymsfield</label><mixed-citation>
Lawson, R. P., Angus, L. J., and Heymsfield, A. J.: Cloud particle
measurements in thunderstorm anvils and possible weather threat to aviation,
J. Aircraft, 35, 113–121, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Lawson et al.(2010)Lawson, Jensen, Mitchell, Baker, Mo, and Pilson</label><mixed-citation>Lawson, R. P., Jensen, E., Mitchell, D. L., Baker, B., Mo, Q., and
Pilson, B.: Microphysical and radiative properties of tropical clouds
investigated in TC4 and NAMMA, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00J08,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013017">10.1029/2009JD013017</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Lawson et al.(2015)Lawson, Woods, and Morrison</label><mixed-citation>Lawson, R. P., Woods, S., and Morrison, H.: The microphysics of ice and
precipitation development in tropical cumulus clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 72,
2429–2445,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0274.1">10.1175/JAS-D-14-0274.1</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Lin et al.(1983)Lin, Farley, and Orville</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, Y.-L., Farley, R. D., and Orville, H. D.: Bulk parameterization of the
snow field in a cloud model, J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 22, 1065–1092, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>List et al.(1987)List, Donaldson, and Stewart</label><mixed-citation>
List, R., Donaldson, N., and Stewart, R.: Temporal evolution of drop spectra
to collisional equilibrium in steady and pulsating rain, J. Atmos. Sci., 44,
362–372, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Locatelli and Hobbs(1974)</label><mixed-citation>
Locatelli, J. D. and Hobbs, P. V.: Fall speeds and masses of solid
precipitation particles, J. Geophys. Res., 79, 2185–2197, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Low and List(1982a)</label><mixed-citation>
Low, T. B. and List, R.: Collision, coalescence and breakup of raindrops.
Part I: Experimentally established coalescence efficiencies and fragment size
distributions in breakup, J. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1591–1606, 1982a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Low and List(1982b)</label><mixed-citation>
Low, T. B. and List, R.: Collision, coalescence and breakup of raindrops.
Part II: Parameterization of fragment size distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., 39,
1607–1618, 1982b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Mason and Grzych(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Mason, J. G. and Grzych, M.: The challenges identifying weather associated
with jet engine ice crystal icing, Tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper
2011-38-0094, SAE International, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Mason et al.(2006)Mason, Strapp, and Chow</label><mixed-citation>
Mason, J. G., Strapp, J. W., and Chow, P.: The ice particle threat to engines
in flight, in: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada,
9–12 January 2006, abstract number AIAA 2006-206, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>May et al.(2008)May, Mather, Vaughan, Jakob, McFarquhar, Bower, and Mace</label><mixed-citation>
May, P. T., Mather, J. H., Vaughan, G., Jakob, C., McFarquhar, G. M.,
Bower, K. N., and Mace, G. G.: The tropical warm pool – international cloud
experiment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 629–646, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>McFarquhar and Heymsfield(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
McFarquhar, G. M. and Heymsfield, A. J.: Microphysical characteristics of
three anvils sampled during the Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment, J.
Atmos. Sci., 53, 2401–2423, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Mitchell and Arnott(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Mitchell, D. L. and Arnott, W. P.: A model predicting the evolution of ice
particle size spectra and radiative properties of cirrus clouds. Part II:
Dependence of absorption and extinction on ice crystal morphology, J. Atmos.
Sci., 51, 817–832, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Mossop(1976)</label><mixed-citation>
Mossop, S. C.: Production of secondary ice particles during the growth of
graupel by riming, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 102, 45–57, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Mossop and Hallet(1974)</label><mixed-citation>
Mossop, S. C. and Hallett, J.: Ice crystal concentration in cumulus clouds:
Influence of the drop spectrum, Science, 186, 632–634, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Pruppacher and Klett(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D.: Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation,
2nd edn., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>Rangno and Hobbs(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Rangno, A. L. and Hobbs, P. V.: Microstructures and precipitation development
in cumulus and small cumulonimbus clouds over the warm pool of the tropical
Pacific Ocean, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 639–673, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Roques(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Roques, S.: An airborne icing characterization probe: nephelometer prototype,
Smart Mater. Struct., 16, 1784–1788,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/16/5/032">10.1088/0964-1726/16/5/032</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2008)Rosenfeld, Lohmann, Raga, O'Dowd, Kulmala, Fuzzi, Reissell, and Andreae</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G. B., O'Dowd, C. D., Kulmala, M.,
Fuzzi, S., Reissell, A., and Andreae, M. O.: Flood or drought: how do
aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1160606">10.1126/science.1160606</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2011)Rosenfeld, Yu, Liu, Xu, Zhu, Yue, Dai, Dong, Dong, and Peng</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Yu, X., Liu, G., Xu, X., Zhu, Y., Yue, Z., Dai, J., Dong, Z.,
Dong, Y., and Peng, Y.: Glaciation temperatures of convective clouds
ingesting desert dust, air pollution and smoke from forest fires, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 38, L21804,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049423">10.1029/2011GL049423</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><label>Seifert and Beheng(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A two-moment cloud microphysics
parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description, Meteorol.
Atmos. Phys., 92, 45–66, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx65"><label>Seifert et al.(2005)Seifert, Khain, Blahak, and Beheng</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A., Khain, A., Blahak, U., and Beheng, K. D.: Possible effects of
collisional breakup on mixed-phase deep convection simulated by a spectral
(bin) cloud model, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 1917–1931, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx66"><label>Sherwood et al.(2013)Sherwood, Hernández-Deckers, Colin, and Robinson</label><mixed-citation>
Sherwood, S. C., Hernández-Deckers, D., Colin, M., and Robinson, F.:
Slippery thermals and the cumulus entrainment paradox, J. Atmos. Sci., 70,
2426–2442, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx67"><label>Stith et al.(2014)Stith, Avallone, Bansemer, Basarab, Dorsi, Fuchs, Lawson, Rogers, Rutledge, and Toohey</label><mixed-citation>Stith, J. L., Avallone, L. M., Bansemer, A., Basarab, B., Dorsi, S. W.,
Fuchs, B., Lawson, R. P., Rogers, D. C., Rutledge, S., and Toohey, D. W.: Ice
particles in the upper anvil regions of midlatitude continental
thunderstorms: the case for frozen-drop aggregates, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
1973–1985, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1973-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-1973-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx68"><label>Strapp et al.(1999)Strapp, Chow, Maltby, Bezer, Korolev, Stromberg, and Hallett</label><mixed-citation>
Strapp, J., Chow, P., Maltby, M., Bezer, A., Korolev, A., Stromberg, I., and
Hallett, J.: Cloud microphysical measurements in thunderstorm outflow regions
during Allied/BAE 1997 flight trials, in: 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Reno, Nevada, USA, 11–14 January 1999, abstract number AIAA 99-048, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx69"><label>Strapp et al.(2008)Strapp, MacLeod, and Lilie</label><mixed-citation>
Strapp, J. W., MacLeod, J., and Lilie, L.: Calibration of ice water content
in a wind tunnel/engine test cell facility, in: 15th Intl. Conf. on Clouds
and Precipitation, Cancun, Mexico, 7–11 July 2008, abstract number P13.1,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx70"><label>Twomey et al.(1968)Twomey, Howell, and Wojciechowski</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S., Howell, H. B., and Wojciechowski, T. A.: Comments on “Anomalous
cloud lines”, J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 333–334,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025&lt;0333:COCL&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025&lt;0333:COCL&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1968.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx71"><label>Valdez and Young(1985)</label><mixed-citation>
Valdez, M. P. and Young, K. C.: Number fluxes in equilibrium raindrop
populations: a Markov chain analysis, J. Atmos. Sci., 42, 1024–1036, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx72"><label>van Diedenhoven et al.(2012)van Diedenhoven, Fridlind, Ackerman, and Cairns</label><mixed-citation>van Diedenhoven, B., Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., and Cairns, B.:
Evaluation of hydrometeor phase and ice properties in cloud-resolving model
simulations of tropical deep convection using radiance and polarization
measurements, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 3290–3314, 2012.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx73"><label>Varble et al.(2014)Varble, Zipser, Fridlind, Zhu, Ackerman, Chaboureau, Collis, Fan, Hill, and Shipway</label><mixed-citation>
Varble, A., Zipser, E. J., Fridlind, A. M., Zhu, P., Ackerman, A. S.,
Chaboureau, J.-P., Collis, S., Fan, J., Hill, A., and Shipway, B.: Evaluation
of cloud-resolving and limited area model intercomparison simulations using
TWP-ICE observations. 1: Deep convective updraft properties, J. Geophys.
Res., 119, 13891–13918, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx74"><label>Varble et al.(2015)Varble, Zipser, Fridlind, Zhu, Ackerman, Chaboureau, Fan, Hill, Shipway, and Williams</label><mixed-citation>Varble, A., Zipser, E. J., Fridlind, A. M., Zhu, P., Ackerman, A. S.,
Chaboureau, J.-P., Fan, J., Hill, A., Shipway, B., and Williams, C.:
Evaluation of cloud-resolving and limited area model intercomparison
simulations using TWP-ICE observations: 2. Precipitation microphysics, J.
Geophys. Res., 119, 13919–13945,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021371">10.1002/2013JD021371</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx75"><label>Yuan et al.(2011)Yuan, Remer, Pickering, and Yu</label><mixed-citation>Yuan, T., Remer, L. A., Pickering, K. E., and Yu, H.: Observational evidence
of aerosol enhancement of lightning activity and convective invigoration,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L04701,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046052">10.1029/2010GL046052</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx76"><label>Zhu et al.(2012)Zhu, Dudhia, Field, Wapler, Fridlind, Varble, Zipser, Petch, Chen, and Zhu</label><mixed-citation>Zhu, P., Dudhia, J., Field, P. R., Wapler, K., Fridlind, A., Varble, A.,
Zipser, E., Petch, J., Chen, M., and Zhu, Z.: A Limited Area Model (LAM)
intercomparison study of a TWP-ICE active monsoon mesocale convective event,
J. Geophys. Res., 117, D11208,
doi:<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016447">10.1029/2011JD016447</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
