<?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"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <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 Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-16-145-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Improving aerosol interaction with clouds and precipitation in a
regional chemical weather modeling system</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Improving aerosol interaction with clouds and precipitation}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C.~Zhou et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name>
          <email>zhouch@cma.gov.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gong</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Institute of Atmospheric Composition, Chinese Academy of Meteorological
Sciences, China Meteorological<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Administration (CMA), Beijing 100081, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">C. Zhou (zhouch@cma.gov.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>18</day><month>January</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>145</fpage><lpage>160</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>30</day><month>April</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>12</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13</day><month>November</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>November</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>A comprehensive aerosol–cloud–precipitation interaction (ACI) scheme has been
developed under a China Meteorological Administration (CMA) chemical weather modeling
system, GRAPES/CUACE (Global/Regional Assimilation and PrEdiction System, CMA Unified
Atmospheric Chemistry Environment). Calculated by a sectional aerosol activation scheme based on the information of size and
mass from CUACE and the thermal-dynamic and humid states from the weather
model GRAPES at each time step, the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are interactively fed
online into a two-moment cloud scheme (WRF Double-Moment 6-class scheme – WDM6) and a convective
parameterization to drive cloud physics and precipitation formation
processes. The modeling system has been applied to study the ACI for
January 2013 when several persistent haze-fog events and eight precipitation
events occurred.</p>
    <p>The results show that aerosols that interact with the WDM6 in GRAPES/CUACE
obviously increase the total cloud water, liquid water content, and cloud
droplet number concentrations, while decreasing the mean diameters of cloud
droplets with varying magnitudes of the changes in each case and region.
These interactive microphysical properties of clouds improve the calculation
of their collection growth rates in some regions and hence the precipitation
rate and distributions in the model, showing 24 to 48 % enhancements of
threat score for 6 h precipitation in almost all regions. The aerosols that interact
with the WDM6 also reduce the regional mean bias of temperature by
3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C during certain precipitation events, but the monthly means bias
is only reduced by about 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Aerosols can act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or ice nuclei (IN) to
participate in cloud formations, alter the microphysics and lifetime of
clouds, and then impact the precipitation (Twomey, 1977; Ramanathan et al.,
2001; Seinfeld and Pandis, 1997; Albrecht, 1989), in so-called aerosol–cloud
interactions (ACI). Most previous research on ACI focusses on
single clouds or climate impacts with very limited data on the mesoscale
weather, partially due to the difficulties of establishing real and reasonable
connections between emissions and aerosol, CCN, clouds, and then precipitation.
Aerosols impacted by emissions, processes of microphysics, and atmospheric
thermodynamics are in different size ranges and consist of several
components which are often temporally and spatially varied (Jacobson et al.,
1994; Zhang et al., 1999; X. Y. Zhang et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2003). Some
components, such as organic carbon, have a very complex structure and
many of their precursors still cannot be detected (Stockwell et al., 1997;
Fuzzi et al., 2006; Jacobson et al., 2000). Meanwhile clouds are also the
results of complex interactions among atmospheric thermodynamics of
different processes. The scale of aerosol–cloud interactions spans from
nanometers to thousands of kilometers, incorporating both complex microphysics and
scales of clouds and aerosols, and macrophysics of air mass and atmospheric
circulation. All of these make it very difficult to establish a direct
connection between emissions and precipitation to quantify the effects of aerosol
on clouds and precipitation in both climate and weather models (Khain, 2009;
Lohmann and Feichter, 2005; Stevens and Feingold, 2009; Tao et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>A weather model with aerosol feedbacks is an important and effective way of
exploring the interactions between aerosols, clouds, and precipitation (Yin et
al., 2002; Levin and Cotton, 2009; Tao et al., 2012; Khain, 2009). Currently,
two distinct approaches, the bin method and the bulk method, are often used
to explore cloud microphysics in the weather models. For bin models, each
type of cloud hydrometer is sectionally resolved to represent its mass or
size distributions which might change in the course of the model
integration (Khain and Sednew, 1996; Khain et al., 2004). The bin method can
explicitly resolve cloud microphysics and provide much more rigorous solutions
than the bulk approach, but it is limited to single clouds because of the huge
computation. The bulk models have been improved from a single-moment approach
to a two-moment approach. The two-moment models can predict not only mass,
but also number concentrations; this allows more flexibility of the size distribution
and enables the mean diameters to evolve, unlike in the single-moment
method (Morrison et al., 2005; Seifert and Beheng, 2001; Lim and Hong, 2010).</p>
      <p>However, no matter which cloud approach is used, the relationship between
aerosols and cloud droplets needs to be established for ACI. One of the
existing relationships is described by the Twomey approach which links the cloud droplet
number concentration to aerosol number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by two
simplified parameters, the supersaturation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and its power exponent
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and has been widely used in climate and weather models
(Ramanathan et al., 2001; Gultepe and Isaac, 1996; Boucher, 1995; Twomey,
1959; Khairoutdinov and Kogan, 2000). In this approach, the two parameters
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> should vary from region to region. While <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
has been set to be constant, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been roughly classified into four
zones: rural, urban, ocean, and remote continents, with no connection to the
emissions and production of the actual aerosol distribution in most cases, and
with no physical processes of aerosol activations, i.e., CCN. Even though in
some models CCN can be prognostic as a result of advection, activation, and
scavenging, aerosol size distribution and the total aerosol number have to
be prescribed (Khain et al., 2004; Fan et al., 2012; Yin et al., 2002). This
may introduce additional bias into aerosol–cloud interaction, especially
for regions like China with high aerosol concentration consisting of different
components.</p>
      <p>East China is one of the most polluted areas in the world (X. Y. Zhang et
al., 2012). High accumulated aerosols and stagnant weather systems frequently
contribute to the formation of regional haze-fog events in this region (Horton et al., 2014;
R. H. Zhang et al., 2013; X. Y. Zhang et al., 2013; Che et al., 2014). Heavy
aerosol pollution has been related to decreased precipitation and a
cooling radiative effect elsewhere (Cheng et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2006; Ma
et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2015). Several studies using the two-moment scheme with
the highly parameterized Twomey formula, or the bin model for one cloud,
show that microphysics of different regimes of clouds and precipitation can
be more realistically simulated by adding the impacts of aerosol in China (Zhang et
al., 2007; Guo et al., 2014; Fan et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2011). Since high
aerosol concentrations alter radiation, cloud microphysics and then the
precipitation, the impacts of aerosols on weather systems cannot be ignored in regional
weather models.</p>
      <p>In order to take into account the effects of aerosol on clouds and
precipitation, a comprehensive scheme containing the emissions, aerosols,
clouds, and their interaction mechanisms has been developed in GRAPES/CUACE,
which is built on the base of the China Meteorological Administration (CMA)
Unified Atmospheric Chemistry Environment/Aerosol (CUACE/Aero) (Zhou et al.,
2012), and the CMA weather forecasting model Global/Regional Assimilation and
PrEdiction System (GRAPES) (Chen et al., 2008). Integrating a time-dependent
CCN formulation from an aerosol activation scheme directly from
CUACE enables the quantitative assessment of the impacts of aerosol
pollution on clouds and precipitation.</p>
      <p>By developing and using the ACI scheme in GRAPES/CUACE here, the aerosol
impacts on clouds and precipitation in east China have been investigated for
1–31 January 2013 when a series of long-lasting haze-fog episodes hit this
region and eight precipitation events occurred. This paper is divided into
five sections, beginning with Sect. 2 for the description of the modeling
system, GRAPES/CUACE. Case description and the designs of numerical experiments are
detailed in Sect. 3. Results and discussions will be shown in Sect. 4, followed
by conclusions in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>ACI scheme established in GRAPES/CUACE</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>GRAPES/CUACE system</title>
      <p>The CMA new generation of weather forecasting model GRAPES is a fully
compressible non-hydrostatic weather model system which uses a semi-implicit
and semi-Lagrangian discretization scheme (Zhang and Shen, 2008; Xu et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2008). It
uses an Arakawa-C staggered grid and the central finite-difference approach of
second-order accuracy in horizontal coordination, a non-hydrostatic
approximation method together with the staggered approach of Charney-Phillips
to improve the accuracy of vertical pressure gradients and a semi-implicit
and semi-Lagrangian scheme for temporal and advection discretion. A
height-based terrain-following coordinate, which behaves as a natural height
coordinate, is used to compromise the Lagrangian trajectory errors in
spherical coordinates at high latitudes. The physical packages include
cumulus convective, single-moment cloud microphysics, radiative, land
surface, and boundary layer processes.</p>
      <p>CUACE is a unified atmospheric chemistry environment with four major
functional subsystems: emissions, gas-phase chemistry, aerosol microphysics,
and data assimilation. It is designed to facilitate the establishment of a
chemical weather forecasting system using near real time data in China (Zhou
et al., 2012, 2008). Seven aerosol components, i.e., sea salts, sand/dust,
elemental carbon, organic carbon, sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium salts are
sectioned into 12 bins with detailed microphysics of hygroscopic growth,
nucleation, coagulation, condensation, dry depositions and wet scavenging in
the aerosol module. The gas chemistry module is based on the second
generation of the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM II) mechanism with 63
gaseous species through 21 photochemical reactions and 121 gas-phase
reactions applicable under a wide variety of environmental conditions
especially for smog (Stockwell et al., 1990), and prepares the production
rates of sulfate and secondary organic aerosol for the aerosol module.
Emission inputs have been provided by the same emission subsystem (EMIS) of
CUACE with the official basic emission sources data updated to the year
2010 (Zhou et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>CUACE is fully coupled online to the regional version of GRAPES, establishing
the comprehensive modeling system, GRAPES/CUACE, and has been used for
radiative feedback research (Wang et al., 2010, 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Aerosol activation in the HG scheme</title>
      <p>The sectional aerosol activated scheme developed by Hayder Abdul-Razzak and
Ghan (HG scheme) provides a convenient platform to connect sectional aerosols
into cloud physics (Abdul-Razzak and Ghan, 2002; Hayder and Ghan, 2000;
Abdul-Razzak et al., 1998; Ghan et al., 1995, 1993). This scheme is derived
from the basic theory of a Köhler curve to calculate how a particle can be
activated under a certain supersaturation in an air parcel. The newly
activated CCN would be parameterized in terms of environmental
supersaturation and the upper and low limit of the critical supersaturation
for each aerosol bin. This method is very useful for the precise determination
of the concentration of droplets nucleated at the cloud base. However, droplet
nucleation or aerosol activation can also take place above the cloud base as
well, which is induced by increasing supersaturation above the cloud base and
lateral entrainment of the surrounding air with dry aerosols (Khain et al.,
2000). Therefore, it is not enough to calculate the CCN at the cloud base
only in an air parcel, especially for stratus clouds where turbulence is more
important than the vertical movement (Bodenschatz et al., 2010). For these
reasons, the HG scheme has been online coupled with both the stratus scheme
and the convective scheme in GRAPES. Consequently, aerosols from CUACE can be
activated into CCN as the humid condition is satisfied, not just in the cloud
base.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Aerosol activation in the Double-Moment 6-class scheme</title>
      <p>The WRF Double-Moment 6-class scheme (WDM6) is introduced into GRAPES since it
can predict not only the mass but also the number of droplets and drops (Lim
and Hong, 2010). It is developed from the WRF Single-Moment 6-class scheme
(WSM6) and needs the CCN input for cloud droplets which provides a direct way
for aerosol feedbacks into clouds and precipitation. The original activation
scheme is expressed as (K2000) (Twomey, 1959; Khairoutdinov and Kogan, 2000)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aerosol number concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the activation
power exponent, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum supersaturation to activate all the
aerosols, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the air supersaturation. The change rate of cloud
droplet number concentration due to CCN activation is given
by

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="}" open="{"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p>In this activation scheme, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are usually
preset just as in the Twomey formula, with the inherited shortcomings
due to the insufficient information of real aerosols. To overcome these, the
aerosol size and composition information from CUACE and the humid and thermal
information from GRAPES are used in the HG scheme to calculate the CCN at each
time step, which is then fed into WDM6 to replace the preset CCN by the
scheme of K2000.</p>
      <p>An aerosol particle can be quickly activated into CCN, usually in less than a
second, as the atmosphere reaches the critical supersaturation of the
aerosols (Kogan, 1991). In models with relatively coarse resolution like
GRAPES, supersaturation cannot be easily satisfied because of the
insufficient information of inhomogeneous turbulence and vertical movements
even when the grid-mean relative humidity is over about 85 to 90 %. Local
supersaturation around a particle can be satisfied, through which
clouds can be formed. As the local supersaturation is not only decided by
the mean fields, a parameterized scheme has been developed to add the effect
of local turbulence and vertical movements to the supersaturation in HG
scheme for WDM6 in GRAPES. The turbulence effect is assumed to be
proportional to the mean relative humidity and inversely proportional to both
the horizontal wind speed and the vertical height.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Aerosol activation in the KF scheme</title>
      <p>Stratiform and convective precipitation are the two precipitation regimes
that cannot be mutually excluded. The former refers to precipitation
with low vertical motions, and the latter to stronger precipitation (Houze, 1997).
These two regimes can be fully explicit in mesoscale model, only under the
condition that the model resolution is below several hundred meters (Molinari
and Dudek, 1992), which is very difficult to realize for the online coupled
modeling systems such as GRAPES/CUACE. A hybrid approach is often used in
most mesoscale models, which can explicitly condense water for the stratus
precipitation in grid scale, to parameterize convective-scale precipitation
in sub-grid scale. In order to fully account for the ACI in the model, the HG scheme has
also been coupled to the Kain–Fritch convective parameterization scheme (KF)
in GRAPES/CUACE (Kain, 2003; Kain and Fritsch, 1990; Fritsch and Chappell,
1980). The sectional aerosols have been introduced and moved upward or
downward as the air mass does in KF. They become activated as soon as the
supersaturation satisfies the critical supersaturation by the HG scheme.</p>
      <p>Since there is no size information for cloud and rainwater in the bulk
convective scheme, a generalized gamma distribution has been introduced to
describe the cloud-droplet and raindrop spectra (Cohard and Pinty, 2000;
Walko et al., 1995; Clark, 1974).

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Here <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>is the slope parameter, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
two shape parameters. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ccn</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ccn</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the newly activated aerosol number concentration, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cloud
number concentration which is set to be 30 cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in terms of
observations in fall in east China (Y. Zhang et al., 2012; Zhang et al.,
2011). Normally <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be specified a priori to be 1 for number
concentration size distribution and 3 for mass concentration size
distribution. Only <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is left to be tuned through measurements. A
parameterization for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been proposed through the total droplet
number concentration and liquid water content (Geoffroy et al., 2010)

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>for size spectra of number concentration</mml:mtext><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>14.5</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>6.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>for size spectra of mass concentration</mml:mtext><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.58</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.72.</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Here <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the liquid water content in the unit of g m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
With Eqs. (4) and (5), droplet size distribution in Eq. (3) can be bulk-represented by the total liquid water content and total cloud droplet number
concentration which can then include the newly activated aerosols from HG.</p>
      <p>The condensed water of the KF scheme is allowed to be removed as precipitation based on
an empirical relationship (Ogura and Cho, 1973):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>co</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Here <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the height of the layer. The
precipitable water <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (4) is inversely proportional
to the vertical velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which means that a small vertical velocity
would produce more <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. As smaller vertical velocity means
weaker convection and less <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>co</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (total condense), less precipitable
water <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would be produced. Therefore, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>co</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are offset against each other, which may cause false large convective
precipitation. In order to overcome this problem, the size spectrum
information of cloud drops and droplets is introduced into the convective
clouds, which resolves the total cloud water content and number
concentrations, including the newly formed CCN. The new precipitable rainwater, indicated by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, can be calculated by integrating Eq. (3) to
replace <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>co</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (6). The threshold for cutoff radius between the
droplets and raindrops in the integration is 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m for deep
convective precipitation (Berry and Reinhardt, 1974; Seifert and Beheng,
2001), and 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m for shallow convective precipitation
(Khairoutdinov and Kogan, 2000). Terminal velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mtext>T</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the raindrops
has also been introduced. Finally, Eq. (6) is reformed as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mtext>T</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Now, the comprehensive interactions of aerosol–cloud–precipitation have been
established in GRAPES/CUACE with activated aerosols from CUACE linked into
both the stratus and convective clouds to participate in the cloud and
precipitation processes.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Threat score comparisons for eight precipitation events for T1, T2,
and T3.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cases</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time period</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">T3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">T2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">T1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(T3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> T1) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(T2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> T1) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"> T1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">T1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12:00 2 Jan–06:00 7 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.518</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.334</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.326</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">58.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">18:00 7 Jan–12:00 9 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.314</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.281</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.333</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">06:00 10 Jan–06:00 13 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.482</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.252</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.327</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">47.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12:00 14 Jan–18:00 17 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.417</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.185</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.224</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">86.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">00:00 23 Jan–18:00 24 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.403</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.151</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.213</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">89.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>29.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">18:00 25 Jan–12:00 27 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.436</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.149</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">192.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">06:00 19 Jan–12:00 22 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.532</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.349</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.389</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">36.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">06:00 29 Jan–00:00 31 Jan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.469</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.338</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">38.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Case description and numerical experiment designs</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Case description</title>
      <p>A series of long-lasting heavy haze-fog events hit the east part of China in
January 2013. Climatology analysis shows that the mean number of the hazy
days in this period is much higher than the mean value from 1981 to 2010,
especially in the three major pollution zones of the North China Plain, Yangtze
River Delta, and Zhu River (R. H. Zhang et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the values
of the stagnant polluted parameter PLAM (parameter linking air quality to meteorological conditions/haze), a threshold value to distinguish
clear and polluted weather, are over 80 in most parts of east China, which
indicates strong static weather conditions for pollutant accumulation
(X. Y. Zhang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2012). Surface daily mean PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations are in the range of 100–150 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and AOD (aerosol optical depth) is
above 1.0 in many surface stations (Che et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Eight precipitation events also occurred in January 2013, with six of them
sweeping over regions south of the Yangtze River as low-pressure systems
moving out of the Sichuan Basin each time (Table 1). Two other cases are related to
cold fronts and affect the whole east of China. This forms a very good period
to study ACI under high-pollution conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Numerical experiment designs</title>
      <p>Three sets of experiential runs are designed: T1 with the single-moment
microphysics scheme of WSM6 and original KF without aerosol activation; T2
with the WDM6 scheme and the activation scheme K2000; and T3 with the HG activation
scheme connected online with WDM6, KF, and CUACE. Five target regions are
selected for the evaluation in terms of typical heavy pollution regions over
China (Fig. 1). R1 and R2 cover the whole of China and east China
respectively. The areas of R2, R3, R4, and R5 are representative of three typical
polluted zones: northeast China, the North China Plain, and south China.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Model domain and five target areas. R1 encompasses the whole of China, R2
east China, R3 northeast China, R4 the North China Plain, and R5 encompasses south China.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The meteorological initial and boundary conditions, at the resolution of
0.5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, are interpolated from the forecasting outputs of the CMA medium
meteorological model T639 in a 6 h interval. The surface daily and hourly
PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations from CMA Atmosphere Watch NETwork (CAWNET) are used
to evaluate the performance of aerosols (Wang et al., 2008; X. Y. Zhang et
al., 2012). Precipitation data from the rain gauges in meteorological
stations over China are used for the precipitation threat scoring (Wang et
al., 2008). Temperature, geopotential height, humidity, and cloud water mixing
ratio of NCEP Reanalysis at standard pressure levels from 1000 to 10 hPa are
used to evaluate the outputs of GRAPES/CUACE (Kalnay et al., 1996).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Vertical profiles of regional mean total cloud water content
<bold>(a1</bold>–<bold>a5)</bold> and temperature <bold>(b1</bold>–<bold>b5)</bold> from
1000 to 100 hPa for R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. T1 denotes WSM6, the control test,
T2 is the WDM6 with the K2000 activation scheme, and T3 denotes WDM6 with aerosol
activated from CUACE. NCEP is for NCEP Reanalysis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Results and discussions</title>
      <p>In order to quantify the impacts of aerosols on precipitation, cloud
properties such as the total cloud water content, cloud liquid water
content, and mean droplet diameters are analyzed to elucidate the aerosol's
effect on clouds. As hourly changes of these variables above are very
chaotic, regional means are discussed in order to avoid the interruption of
small-scale advection and diffusion. The threat scores (TS) of 6 h
precipitation are also quantitatively analyzed to evaluate the aerosol's
effect on precipitation. The changes in temperature and height are also
discussed to explore the aerosol effects on the dynamic and thermal state of the atmosphere. Hourly
surface aerosol concentrations are compared to the measurements to see the
ACI feedbacks on aerosol distribution.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Aerosol effects on the clouds</title>
      <p>Regional monthly mean vertical profiles of the total cloud water (the total
mass of cloud water, rainwater, ice water, snow, and graupel) and temperature
for T1, T2, and T3 together with the NCEP Reanalysis in R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5
are shown in Fig. 2a1–a5 and b1–b5. Compared to T1, T2, and NCEP Reanalysis
in the layers below 600 hPa, the total cloud water increases obviously
in all five regions for T3 with a clear peak at about 850 hPa. These results
indicate that with more realistic aerosols interacting with clouds (T3), more
water vapor condenses into cloud water due to the activation of aerosol
particles.</p>
      <p>The amount of the increasing cloud water for T3 has very unique regional
characteristics. The increase in R1, i.e., nationwide, with plenty of remote
dry areas such as Tibet and northwest China, is much less than in R2 which
represents the most developed regions in China with a lot of emissions. Of
the three typical polluted regions, R3 covers most parts of northeast China
with below-freezing temperatures, which is not favorable for warm cloud
formation; therefore no obvious increases are found compared to between T2 and
T3. While the temperature in R4, the most polluted area in China, is near or
just above freezing, the condition is favorable for the long-lasting haze
formation but not a good condition for cloud and precipitation formation with
the relatively little cloud water. In R5 where abundant cloud water exists
and the temperature under 700 hPa is above freezing, this region has the most
enhancement for aerosol activation and the development of warm clouds.</p>
      <p>The amount of total cloud water by T1 and T2 is compatible with each other
because there is no aerosol feeding into the single-moment scheme T1 and the
aerosol activation is based on the prescribed aerosol numbers without
spatial variation in T2. Profiles of cloud water from NCEP are close to that
of T1 and T2 in all of the five regions. Even though basic variables
such as wind, temperature, relative humidity, height, and pressure are most
analyzed from measurements, the cloud water data from NCEP Reanalysis are not from
direct observations but from cloud physics' diagnosis. Cloud water data from
NCEP Reanalysis should be carefully used in the regions affected by high
aerosol concentrations.</p>
      <p>For all regions, the increases by T3 in total cloud water contents are driven
by liquid water contents (Fig. 3a1–f1). The solid cloud water for T1, T2, and
T3 is in the same order of 1.0 <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:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in all
the three regions and follows almost the same vertical distribution shapes
with tiny difference of height and thickness in each region, showing
relatively small effects from aerosols (Fig. 3a2–f2).</p>
      <p>The aerosol activation in T3 can also increase the cloud number
concentrations which affect the mean diameters of droplets (MDD). The profiles
of MDD in R4 and R5 are shown in Fig. 4. MDDs for T3 are all below
10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m, about 1 order less than those of T2, and change little
with height in the lower troposphere under 700 hPa (Fig. 4a), showing a
clear decrease after aerosols activated into clouds in the North China Plain
(R4) and south China (R5). Conventionally, smaller droplets (usually less
than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) need more time to grow into raindrops than the
larger drops, which should result in more rains produced in T2 than in T3
after a decrease in MDDs. However, due to the self-collection growth process,
which depends on both the MDDs and number concentrations of cloud droplets,
the simulations in T2 do not see more rain produced (as discussed in
Sect. 4.2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Vertical profiles of regional mean liquid water
<bold>(a1</bold>–<bold>f1)</bold> and solid water <bold>(a2</bold>–<bold>f2)</bold> for R1,
R2, R3, R4, and R5 from 1000 to 100 hPa. T1 denotes WSM6, the control test, T2
is the WDM6 with the K2000 activation scheme, and T3 denotes WDM6 with aerosol
activated from CUACE. NCEP is for NCEP Reanalysis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the vertical profile of mean diameters of cloud
droplets for T3 in R4 and R5; <bold>(b)</bold> is the same as <bold>(a)</bold> but for
T2. Panel <bold>(c)</bold> shows the collision coefficient for T2 and T3 in R3;
<bold>(d)</bold> and <bold>(e)</bold> are the same as <bold>(c)</bold> but for R4 and R5.
Panel <bold>(f)</bold> shows the cloud droplet number concentration for T2 and T3 in
R3; <bold>(g)</bold> and <bold>(h)</bold> are the same as  <bold>(f)</bold> but for R4 and
R5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In order to investigate the combined impacts of both MDDs and number
concentrations on rain production, the self-collection kernels for the
two-moment WDM6 from Long's work (Long, 1974) is used. As shown in Fig. 4e,
self-collection rates (SCRs) of R5 for T3 are the largest among all three
tests among the three regions of R3, R4, and R5. They are over
100 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> under 700 hPa, about 1 order of magnitude higher
than in T2. This indicates that in R5 even though the activated aerosols from
CUACE decrease the MDD which may in some way decrease the self-collection
process, the high concentration of cloud droplets from aerosol activation,
4 orders of magnitudes higher than that of T2, enhances the chance of
collision and compromises the decreasing collision trend by MDD. Therefore,
the SCRs can explain the phenomenon that the precipitation simulation ability
increases obviously for T3 in R5 (in Sect. 4.2). While in the North China Plain
(R4), SCRs for T3 and T2 are almost the same, they varied around the value of
2 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, meaning that a lot of aerosols activate as small
cloud drops which grow very slowly into larger ones and stay in
the atmosphere for a relatively long time, forming long-lasting haze there (Fig. 4d). In northeast
China (R3), SCRs for T3 and T2 are so small that the SCRs could be ignored,
which is also consistent with the cold cloud formation (Fig. 4c).</p>
      <p>In summary, the aerosol effects on cloud formation are very different in the
three typical polluted regions: R3, R4, and R5. As shown above, R3 is
controlled by cold cloud formation processes; little impact of aerosol activation can be seen in
this region. In R4, the relatively humid layer from the surface to 600 hPa
indicates a favorable condition for the formation of long-lasting haze as
proven by both the mean diameters of droplets and collection rates. In R5, liquid
water for T3 is also 1 order higher than that in R4 and 3 orders of
magnitude higher than that in R3. Together with the highest collection rate,
R5 consists of good conditions for the formation of precipitation, which is
consistent with the improvement of the precipitation simulation ability as
discussed below.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of 6 h precipitation threat scores (TS) <bold>(a</bold>–<bold>e)</bold>
and monthly mean TS <bold>(f</bold>–<bold>h)</bold> for R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. T1
denotes WSM6, the control test, T2 is the WDM6 with the K2000 activation
scheme, and T3 denotes WDM6 with aerosol activated from CUACE.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Aerosol effects on precipitation</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Regional threat scoring evaluation</title>
      <p>Threat scoring is a common and useful way to quantitatively evaluate the
model performance of regional precipitation (Mitternaier et al., 2013;
Gilleland et al., 2009). The 6 h accumulated gauge values from 1400 routine
weather stations in CMA are used for the evaluation. The threshold value for
the contingency table is 0.1 cm which is in harmony with the 24 h threat
scoring threshold usually used in most operational weather forecasting
centers. Threat scoring for 6 h precipitation is stricter than 24 h due to
the short timescale. The model precipitation results from the three tests,
T1, T2, and T3, are interpolated into the meteorological stations and compared
with the observations through the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 contingency table to calculate the threat scores for the
five target regions: R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5.</p>
      <p>The time series of 6 h precipitation threat score for T3 are consistently
higher than those for T2 and T1 for all five regions (Fig. 5a–d) with a
monthly mean improvement of about 33, 45, 32, 24, and 50 % respectively
(Fig. 5f–l). The improvement for south China (R5) is the highest which is
consistent with the results of active aerosol effects on clouds there. Even
in China North Plain (R4) where only two precipitation events occur and last
for only 4 days, the mean threat score of T3 is still higher than that of T1
and T2 (Fig. 5c, i). The monthly mean threat scores for T2 are not higher but
slightly lower than that for T1 in R2, R4, and R5, indicating that without the
real aerosol information from CUACE, the two-moment scheme cannot improve the
model precipitation simulation. There is an exception in R3 where the threat
score of T2 is almost the same as that of T3. This is because the
precipitation is mainly formed by icy clouds in north China (R3) in January
and few aerosols can be activated into cloud droplets to participate in
cloud processes, resulting in a small threat scoring difference between T2
and T3. It can also indicate that the WDM6 does improve the microphysics for
cold cloud formation as the threat scores in T2 and T3 are both higher than
that of T1 in R3.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p>Biases for the five regions of R1–R5 and three tests T1–T3.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <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:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">R1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">R2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">R3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">R4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">R5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.62</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.55</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.95</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.13</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>To evaluate the overall performance, false alarms or missing events need to be
considered. The monthly biases of precipitation simulation, namely
(hits <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> false alarm) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (hits <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> misses), which infer the over-
(larger than 1) or under- (less than 1) estimates of the rain frequency, are
0.73, 0.75, and 1.13 for T1, T2, and T3 in R1 respectively (Table 2). This
means that the underestimation in T1 and T2 has been corrected by adding real
aerosol activation in T3. This is also true for cases in R2, R4, and R5.
Figure 6 shows a very typical precipitation distribution pattern for T1, T2, and
T3 and shows through a visual comparison that the precipitation in T3 is very close to the surface
observation in terms of timing and coverage from 08:00 (LST) to 14:00 on
3 January. The threat scores are 0.71 and 0.62 and the biases are 1.35 and 1.19 for T3, showing a
relatively stable and good simulation. As for T1 and T2, threat scores
sharply decrease 6 h after 08:00. The value of biases, much lower than 1, indicates that
the decreasing threat score comes from severe underestimation. In northeast China (R3), biases for T2 and T3 are close to
1 and close to each other. This is also consistent with the results of cloud
water and the threat score in this region that show that WDM6 performs better for cold
clouds and precipitation than the single-moment scheme WSM6.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the distribution of 6 h accumulated
precipitation (shaded) compared with observations (dotted) with the TS
and bias at 08:00 LT 4 January 2013 by T1. Panel <bold>(b)</bold> is the same
as <bold>(a)</bold> but for 14:00 LT; <bold>(c)</bold> is the same as <bold>(a)</bold>
but for T2, and <bold>(d)</bold> is same as <bold>(c)</bold> but for 14:00 LT.
<bold>(f)</bold> is the same as <bold>(a)</bold> but for T3, and <bold>(f)</bold> is the same
as <bold>(e)</bold> but for 14:00 LT.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f06.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Threat scoring for case evaluation</title>
      <p>Two national precipitation events (cases 7 and 8) hit most parts of east China
in R2, including R3, R4, and R5; and six cases (case 1 to case 6) hit south China
in R5 in January 2013 (Table 1). The mean threat score for all the cases is
0.446, 0.246, and 0.287 for T3, T2, and T1 respectively. The mean improvement
is about 68.0 %, and the most extraordinary improvement is 192.6 % for
case 6. Threat scores for T2 are generally lower than those for T1 by
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.5 %. These results are also consistent with the conclusions of the
regional precipitation scoring evaluation.</p>
      <p>Both the time series' threat score and the case threat score show that the
WDM6 scheme alone cannot improve but decrease the ability of precipitation
simulation without real aerosol activation information from the cloud
microphysics, even though it is more physically based than the one-moment
scheme. Additional errors may have been introduced into the model with the
prescribed aerosol number concentrations. Only the WDM6 with the aerosol size
and number concentration information from CUACE, driven by emissions and
microphysics, as in T3, can significantly improve the model's precipitation
simulation ability.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Aerosol effects on temperature</title>
      <p>Results of regional mean temperature profiles in the five target areas
above 700 hPa are almost the same as from NCEP Reanalysis (Fig. 2b1–b5).
The differences between simulations and NCEP Reanalysis are mostly under
700 hPa in all of the five regions and decrease with height. Temperature
is from 5 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C higher for all the three tests (T1–T3) compared to that of
NCEP near the surface in R3 and R4, indicating some problems for GRAPES in
the North China Plain. In south China (R5) the regional mean temperature profiles
are also almost the same as from NCEP Reanalysis, showing a good performance
of GRAPES there. The regional mean difference of temperature for different
tests in each region is not very obvious, with the highest value of about
0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C near the surface located in south China between T3 and T1.
Above the surface or in other regions, the mean temperature difference is not
significant (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). This means that the regional mean
temperature changed by the aerosol is not obvious. This is also the case for
the geopotential heights.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Temperature bias differences between T3 and T1, and T2 and T1 at
heights of 1000, 850, and 700 hPa for the regions of R3
<bold>(a1</bold>–<bold>a3)</bold>, R4 <bold>(b1</bold>–<bold>b3)</bold>, and R5
<bold>(c1</bold>–<bold>c3)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Panels <bold>(a)</bold>, <bold>(b)</bold>, and <bold>(c)</bold> display scatter plots of
daily average PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> between the model and the observations for T3 in R1,
R4, and R5. Panel <bold>(d)</bold> depicts correlation coefficients of PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
between the simulation and measurements for T1, T2, and T3 in the regions of R1, R2, R3,
R4, and R5. Fcst denotes forecast.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=298.753937pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016-f08.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The time series of differences in the regional mean temperature biases
between T3 &amp; T1 and T2 &amp; T1 in the three typical polluted areas (R3,
R4,
and R5) in east China at the three layers are shown in Fig. 7. T3 can clearly
decrease the temperature biases below 700 hPa most of the time in all three
regions. The difference magnitude decreases from 1000 to 700 hPa, showing
the clear impact of aerosol below 700 hPa in these layers. The largest
decrease is about 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C near the surface and about 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C even
at 700 hPa in R5 during the precipitation event from 19 to 22 January. The
difference is less than 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in R3 and R4 most of the time. It also
shows that T2 increases the biases with the largest increase in R5. T2 might
even at some times decrease the biases, but with a lower magnitude compared
to that of T3.</p>
      <p>The above analysis also shows that WDM6 with the activation scheme K2000 can
introduce errors to the atmospheric temperature fields because of the
missing details of aerosol size and component information. The errors would
increase with the intensity and frequency of the precipitation. Similarly to the
conclusion from the threat scoring analysis, only the two-moment scheme with
the real-time aerosol activation can reduce the temperature bias and
increase the model's ability to simulate precipitation.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Feedbacks on surface aerosol simulation</title>
      <p>To realistically simulate the aerosol impacts on clouds, a good performance
of PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulation, including aerosol sizes and vertical distributions,
is critical. Due to limited available observations during the simulation
period, only daily averages of PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations from GRAPES/CUACE
have been interpolated and compared with the observations in 32
stations from CAWNET, which have been sorted into the five target regions
from R1 to R5. Scatter plots in Fig. 8a–c for PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulation for R1, R4, and R5, the
nationwide region and the two regions more significantly affected by
aerosols, show that the daily average particle mass
concentrations between the observations and model outputs are within a factor of 2. This is compatible with
the simulation level of particle matter in most models.</p>
      <p>Total correlation coefficients for T1, T2, and T3 in R1 to R5 have been
plotted in Fig. 8d. Correlation coefficients for R1, R2 and R5 are above
0.54 for all three tests. Correlation coefficients for R4 are about 0.48
for the three tests. This shows a relative stable and reasonable performance
for PM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> over these four regions. Correlation coefficients for R3 are
only about 0.2 for the three tests, showing a relatively poor simulation there.
These results are a little higher than the result by Zhou 2012 for the same
region (Zhou et al., 2012). Figure 8d also indicates that the differences of
correlation coefficients of the three tests in each region are very small.
ACI can increase the correlation coefficient by about 2 % in terms of
monthly mean.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>A comprehensive aerosol–cloud–precipitation interaction model has been
developed under the CMA chemical weather modeling system GRAPES/CUACE.
Simulations with this comprehensive system show that activated
aerosols from CUACE that interact with WDM6 in GRAPES/CUACE clearly increase the total
cloud water, liquid cloud water, and number concentration of droplets; and decrease
the mean diameters of the droplets. It is found that the ultimate efficiency
of the transformation of aerosol to clouds and precipitation is controlled by multiple parameters,
largely by self-collection growth rates in high aerosol-loading regions.</p>
      <p>Studies show that interacting aerosols can obviously increase the model's
precipitation performance with a threat scoring improvement from 24 to
48 %, and correct the obvious underestimation by the control test. It is
found the physically based, two-moment cloud physics model WDM6 in GRAPES/CUACE can
produce rational precipitation results with only realistic interactive
aerosol inputs in warm and mixed clouds, especially in highly polluted
regions. WDM6 can also improve the performance of precipitation in cold
clouds compared to the control test with the one-moment scheme WSM6.</p>
      <p>It is further found out that the aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions in
GRAPES/CUACE also reduce temperature bias as well, especially under 700 hPa,
which is in harmony with the fact that most aerosols are located below this layer.
The aerosol–cloud interaction can decrease the temperature bias by 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
at some times during the precipitation event. The monthly mean impact by
aerosol–cloud interaction is only about 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Aerosol–cloud
interaction's feedback to the surface aerosol concentration is not
significant and can increase the correlation coefficient by about 2 % in
terms of monthly mean.</p>
      <p>In this paper, an ACI scheme has been explored mainly in wintertime when
convection is not strong and a large part of precipitation is from stratified
clouds that can be resolved by WDM6. As the comprehensive and complex
relations between emissions, clouds, and precipitation explored in this paper provide a
platform to study the impacts of aerosol on the mesoscale weather system on a much
wider spatial-temporal scale, the ACI should be investigated in the future at
different times for different weather patterns.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the National Basic
Program (973) of China (2011CB403404), the National Natural Foundation for
Young Scientists of China (1340400501), the Science and Technology support
program (2014BAC16B03) and the CMA innovation team for fog-haze monitoring and
forecast.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: J. Brandt</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation.
3. Sectional representation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 148–227, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</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.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Berry, E. X. and Reinhardt, R. L.: An Analysis of Cloud Drop Growth by
Collection: Part 2. Single Initial Distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., 31,
1825–1831, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bodenschatz, E., Malinowski, S. P., Shaw, R. A., and Stratmann, F.: Can We
Understand Clouds Without Turbulence?, Science, 327, 970–971,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1185138" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1185138</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Boucher, O.: The sulfate -CCN-cloud albedo effect A sensitivity study with
two general circulation models, Tellus, 47B, 281–300, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Che, H., Xia, X., Zhu, J., Li, Z., Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Goloub, P., Chen,
H., Estelles, V., Cuevas-Agulló, E., Blarel, L., Wang, H., Zhao, H.,
Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Sun, J., Tao, R., Zhang, X., and Shi, G.: Column aerosol
optical properties and aerosol radiative forcing during a serious haze-fog
month over North China Plain in 2013 based on ground-based sunphotometer
measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 2125–2138,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-2125-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-2125-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Chen, D. H., Xue, J. S., Yang, X. S., Zhang, H. L., Shen, X. S., Hu, J. L.,
Wang, Y., Ji, L. R., and Chen, J. B.: New generation of multiscale NWP system
(GRAPES): General scientific design, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53, 3433–3445,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Cheng, Y., Lohmann, U., and Zhang, J.: Contribution of Changes in Sea
Surface Temperature and Aerosol Loading to the Decreasing Precipitation Trend
in Southern China, J. Climate, 18, 1381–1390, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Clark, T. L.: A study in cloud phase parameterization using the gamma
distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 142–155, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cohard, J.-M. and Pinty, J.-P.: A comprehensive two-moment warm
microphysical bulk scheme. I: Description and tests, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
126, 1815–1842, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Fan, J., Leung, L. R., Li, Z., Morrison, H., Chen, H., Zhou, Y., and Wang,
Q.: Aerosol impacts on clouds and precipitation in eastern China: Results
from bin and bulk microphysics, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D00K36,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016537" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016537</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Fritsch, J. M. and Chappell, C. F.: Numerical Prediction of Convectively
Driven Mesoscale Pressure Systems. Part 1: Convective Parameterization, J.
Atmos. Sci., 37, 1722–1733, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Fuzzi, S., Andreae, M. O., Huebert, B. J., Kulmala, M., Bond, T. C., Boy, M.,
Doherty, S. J., Guenther, A., Kanakidou, M., Kawamura, K., Kerminen, V.-M.,
Lohmann, U., Russell, L. M., and Pöschl, U.: Critical assessment of the
current state of scientific knowledge, terminology, and research needs
concerning the role of organic aerosols in the atmosphere, climate, and
global change, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 2017–2038,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-2017-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-2017-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Geoffroy, O., Brenguier, J.-L., and Burnet, F.: Parametric representation of
the cloud droplet spectra for LES warm bulk microphysical schemes, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 4835–4848, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4835-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-4835-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Chuang, C. C., and Penner, J. E.: A parameterization of cloud
droplet nulceation. Part I: Single aerosol type, Atmos. Res., 30, 197–221,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Chuang, C. C., Easter, R. C., and Penner, J. E.: A
parameterization of cloud droplet nucleation. Part II: multiple aerosol
types, Atmos. Res., 36, 39–45, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Gilleland, E., Ahijevych, D., Brown, B. G., Casati, B., and Ebert, E.:
Intercomparison of Statial Forecast Verification Methods, Weather Forecast.,
24, 1416–1430, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Gong, S. L., Barrie, L. A., Blanchet, J.-P., Salzen, K. V., Lohmann, U.,
Lesins, G., Spacek, L., Zhang, L. M., Girard, E., Lin, H., Leaitch, R.,
Leighton, H., Chylek, P., and Huang, P.: Canadian Aerosol Module: A
size-segregated simulation of atmospheric aerosol processes for climate and
air quality models 1. Module development, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4007,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD002002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD002002</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Gultepe, I. and Isaac, G. A.: The relationship between cloud droplet and
aerosol number concentrations for climate models, Int. J. Climatol., 16,
941–946, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Guo, X., Fu, D., Guo, X., and Zhang, C.: A case study of aerosol impacts on
summer convective clouds and precipitation over northern China, Atmos. Res.,
142, 142–157, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.10.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.10.006</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Hayder, A.-R. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation. 2.
Multi aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Horton, D. E., Skinner, C. B., Singh, D., and Diffenbaugh, N. S.: Occurrence
and persistence of future atmospheric stagnation events, Nature Climate
Change, 4, 698–703, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2272" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2272</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Houze, R. A.: Stratiform Precipitation in Regions of Convection: A
Meteorological Paradox?, B. Am. Meoteorol. Soc., 78, 2179–2196, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Jacobson, M. C., Hansson, H.-C., Noone, K. J., and Charlson, R. J.: Organic
Atmospheric Aerosols: Review and State of the Science, Rev. Geophys., 38,
267–294, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</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.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Kain, J. S.: The Kain-Fritsch Convective Parameterization: An Update, J.
Appl. Meteorol., 43, 170–181, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Kain, J. S. and Fritsch, J. M.: A One-Dimensional Entertaining/Detraining
Plume Model and Its Application in Convective Parameterization, J. Atmos.
Sci., 47, 2784–2802, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L.,
Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M.,
Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang,
J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., and Joseph, D.: The NCEP/NCAR
40-Vear Reanalysis Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–471, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P.: Notes on state-of-art investigations of aerosol effects on
precipitation: a critical review, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 015004,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/015004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/015004</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P. and Sednew, I.: Simulation of precipitation formation in the
Eastern Mediterranean coastal zone using a spectral microphysics cloud
ensemble model, Atmos. Res., 43, 77–110, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Ovtchinnikov, M., Pinsky, M., Pokrovsky, A., and Krugliak, H.:
Notes on the state-of-art numerical modeling of cloud microphysics, Atmos.
Res., 55, 159–224, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Pokrovsky, A., and Pinsky, M.: Simulation of effects of
atmospheric aerosols on deep turbulent convective clouds using a spectral
microphysics mixed-phase cumulus cloud model. Part 1: model description and
possible applications, J. Aerosol Sci., 61, 2963–2981, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Khairoutdinov, M. and Kogan, Y.: A new cloud physics parameterization in a
large-eddy simulation model of marine stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 128,
229–243, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Kogan, Y. L.: The simulation of a convective cloud in a 3-D model with
explict microphysics. Part 1: Model description and sensitivity experiments,
J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 1160–1189, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Levin, Z. and Cotton, W. R.: Aerosol Pollution Impact on Precipitation, A
Scientific Review, Springer, the Netherlands, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Lim, K.-S. S. and Hong, S.-Y.: Development of an Effective Double-Moment
Cloud Microphysics Scheme with Prognostic Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) for
Weather and Climate Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 138, 1587–1612,
doi:1510.1175/2009MWR2968.1581, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Long, A. B.: Solutions to the droplet collection equation for polynomail
kernels, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1041–1057, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Ma, J., Chen, Y., Wang, W., Yan, P., Liu, H., Yang, S., Hu, Z., and
Lelieveld, J.: Strong air pollution causes widespread haze-cloud over China,
J. Geophy. Res., 115, D18204, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013065" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013065</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Mitternaier, M., Roberts, N., and Thompson, S. A.: A long-term assessment of
precipitation forecast skill using the fractions Skill Score, Meterol. Appl.,
20, 176–186, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.296" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/met.296</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Molinari, J. and Dudek, M.: Parameterization of Convective Prediction in
Mesoscale Numberical Models: A Critical Review, Mon. Weather Rev., 120,
326–344, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Morrison, H., Curry, J. A., and Khvorostyanov, V. I.: A New Double-Moment
Microphysics Parameterization for Application in Cloud and Climate Models.
Part I: Description, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 1665–1677, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Ogura, Y. and Cho, H.-R.: Diagnostic Determination of Cumulus Cloud
Populations from Observed Large-Scale Variables, J. Atmos. Sci., 30,
1276–1286, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Rosenfeld, D.: Atmosphere
– Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle, Science, 294, 2119–2124,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A double-moment parameterization for
simulating autoconversion, accretion and self-collection, Atmos. Res., 59,
265–281, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: from
Air pollution to Climate Change, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., New York, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Stevens, B. and Feingold, G.: Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and
precipitation in a buffered system, Nature, 461, 607–613,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature08281</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, W. R., Middleton, P., Change, J. S., and Tang, X.: The second
generation Regional Acid Deposition Model Chemical Mechanizm for Regional Ai
Quality Modeling, J. Geophy. Res., 95, 16343–16376, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, W. R., Kirchner, F., Kuhn, M., and Seefeld, S.: A new mechanism
for regional atmospheric chemistry modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
25847–25879, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Tao, W.-K., Chen, J.-P., Li, Z., Wang, C., and Zhang, C.: Impact of Aerosols
on Convective Clouds and Precipitation, Rev. Geophys., 50, RG2001,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000369" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011RG000369</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. J.: The nuclei of natural cloud formation, II, The supersaturation
in natural clouds and the variation of cloud droplet concentration, Geofisica
Pura e Applicata, 43, 243–249, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01993560" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01993560</ext-link>, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. J.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci., 34,  1149–1152, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Walko, R. L., Cotton, W. R., Meyers, M. P., and Harrington, J. Y.: New RAMS
cloud microphysics parameterization Part 1: the single-momnet scheme, Atmos.
Res., 38, 29–62, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Zhang, X., Gong, S., Chen, Y., Shi, G., and Li, W.: Radiative
feedback of dust aerosols on the East Asian dust storms, J. Geophy. Res.,
115, D23214, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013430" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013430</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Shi, G. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Tan, S. C., Chen, B., Che,
H. Z., and Li, T.: Mesoscale modelling study of the interactions between
aerosols and PBL meteorology during a haze episode in China Jing–Jin–Ji and
its near surrounding region – Part 2: Aerosols' radiative feedback effects,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3277–3287, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Wang, J. Z., Gong, S. L., Zhang, X. Y., Yang, Y. Q., Hou, Q., Zhou, C. H.,
and Wang, Y. Q.: A ParameterizedMethod for
Air-Quality Diagnosis and Its Applications, Adv. Meteorol., 2012, 1–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/238589" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1155/2012/238589</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Yao, L., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Ji, D., Tang, G., Zhang, J., Sun, Y.,
Hu, B., and Xin, J.: Mechanism for the formation of the January 2013 heavy
haze pollution episode over central and eastern China, Sci. China Earth Sci.,
57, 14–25, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-013-4773-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-013-4773-4</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y. Q., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Zhou, C. H., Hu, X. Q., Liu, H. L.,
Niu, T., and Yang, Y. Q.: Surface observation of sand and dust storm in East
Asia and its application in CUACE/Dust, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 545–553,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-545-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-545-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Xu, G. Q., Chen, D. H., Xue, J. S., Sun, J., Shen, X. S., Shen, Y. F.,
Huang, L. P., Wu, X. J., Zhang, H. L., and Wang, S. Y.: The program structure
designing and optimizing tests of GRAPES physics, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53,
3470–3476, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Yang, S., Ma, J., Hu, Z., Yan, P., Chen, Y., and Wang, W.: Influence of
multi-chemical-component aerosols on the microphysics of warm clouds in North
China, Sci. China Earth Sci., 54, 451–461, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4075-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-010-4075-z</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Yin, Y., Wurzler, S., Levin, Z., and Reisin, T. G.: Interactions of mineral
dust particles and clouds: effects on precipitation and cloud optical
properties, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4724, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001544" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD001544</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, D., Guo, X., Gong, D., and Yao, Z.: The observational results of the
clouds microphysical structure based on the data obtained by 23 sorties
between 1989 and 2008 in Shandong Province, Acta Meteorol. Sin., 69,
195–207, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Li, G., Fan, J., Wu, D. L., and Molina, M. J.: Intensification of
Pacific storm track linked to Asian pollution, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104,
5295–5299, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700618104" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0700618104</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R. H. and Shen, X. S.: On the development of the GRAPESA new generation
of the national operational NWP system in China, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53,
3429–3232, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R. H., Li, Q., and Zhang, R. N.: Meteorological conditions for the
persistent severe fog and haze event over eastern China in January 2013, Sci.
China Earth Sci., 57, 26–35, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-013-4774-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-013-4774-3</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Niu, T., Zhang, X. C., Gong, S. L., Zhang, Y. M.,
and Sun, J. Y.: Atmospheric aerosol compositions in China: spatial/temporal
variability, chemical signature, regional haze distribution and comparisons
with global aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 779–799,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-779-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-779-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X. Y., Sun, J. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Li, W. J., Zhang, Q., Wang, W. G.,
Quan, J. N., Cao, G. L., Wang, J. Z.,
Yang, Y. Q., and Zhang, Y. M.: Factors contributing to haze and fog in China
(in Chinese), Chinese Sci. Bull. (Chinese Version), 58, 1178–1187,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1360/972013-150" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1360/972013-150</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Seigneur, C., Senfeld, H. H., Jacbson, M. Z., and Binkowski, F.
S.: Simulation of aerosl dynamics: A comparative review of algorithms used in
air quality models, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 31, 487–514, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Yin, Y., Shi, L., Duan, Y., and Wu, Z.: Analysis of Cloud
Microphysics Structure over Hebei Region during Autumn of 2007, Plateau
Meteorology, 31, 530–537, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, C., Tie, X., and Lin, Y.: A possible positive feedback of reduction of
precipitation and increase in aerosols over eastern central China, J.
Geophys. Res., 33, L11814, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025959" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL025959</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, C. H., Gong, S. L., Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Niu, T., Liu, H. L.,
Zhao, T. L., Yang, Y. Q., and Hou, Q.: Development and evaluation of an
operational SDS forecasting system for East Asia: CUACE/Dust, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 787–798, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-787-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-787-2008</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, C.-H., Gong, S., Zhang, X.-Y., Liu, H. L., Xue, M., Cao, G. L., An, X.
Q., Che, H. Z., Zhang, Y. M., and Niu, T.: Towards the improvements of
simulating the chemical and optical properties of Chinese aerosols using an
online coupled model CUACE/Aero, Tellus B, 64, 18965,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.18965" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.18965</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

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

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Improving aerosol interaction with clouds and precipitation in a
regional chemical weather modeling system</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">A comprehensive aerosol–cloud–precipitation interaction (ACI) scheme has been
developed under a China Meteorological Administration (CMA) chemical weather modeling
system, GRAPES/CUACE (Global/Regional Assimilation and PrEdiction System, CMA Unified
Atmospheric Chemistry Environment). Calculated by a sectional aerosol activation scheme based on the information of size and
mass from CUACE and the thermal-dynamic and humid states from the weather
model GRAPES at each time step, the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are interactively fed
online into a two-moment cloud scheme (WRF Double-Moment 6-class scheme – WDM6) and a convective
parameterization to drive cloud physics and precipitation formation
processes. The modeling system has been applied to study the ACI for
January 2013 when several persistent haze-fog events and eight precipitation
events occurred.</p><p class="p">The results show that aerosols that interact with the WDM6 in GRAPES/CUACE
obviously increase the total cloud water, liquid water content, and cloud
droplet number concentrations, while decreasing the mean diameters of cloud
droplets with varying magnitudes of the changes in each case and region.
These interactive microphysical properties of clouds improve the calculation
of their collection growth rates in some regions and hence the precipitation
rate and distributions in the model, showing 24 to 48 % enhancements of
threat score for 6 h precipitation in almost all regions. The aerosols that interact
with the WDM6 also reduce the regional mean bias of temperature by
3 <i/>°C during certain precipitation events, but the monthly means bias
is only reduced by about 0.3 <i/>°C.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation.
3. Sectional representation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 148–227, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Berry, E. X. and Reinhardt, R. L.: An Analysis of Cloud Drop Growth by
Collection: Part 2. Single Initial Distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., 31,
1825–1831, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bodenschatz, E., Malinowski, S. P., Shaw, R. A., and Stratmann, F.: Can We
Understand Clouds Without Turbulence?, Science, 327, 970–971,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1185138" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1185138</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Boucher, O.: The sulfate -CCN-cloud albedo effect A sensitivity study with
two general circulation models, Tellus, 47B, 281–300, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Che, H., Xia, X., Zhu, J., Li, Z., Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Goloub, P., Chen,
H., Estelles, V., Cuevas-Agulló, E., Blarel, L., Wang, H., Zhao, H.,
Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Sun, J., Tao, R., Zhang, X., and Shi, G.: Column aerosol
optical properties and aerosol radiative forcing during a serious haze-fog
month over North China Plain in 2013 based on ground-based sunphotometer
measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 2125–2138,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-2125-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-2125-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Chen, D. H., Xue, J. S., Yang, X. S., Zhang, H. L., Shen, X. S., Hu, J. L.,
Wang, Y., Ji, L. R., and Chen, J. B.: New generation of multiscale NWP system
(GRAPES): General scientific design, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53, 3433–3445,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Cheng, Y., Lohmann, U., and Zhang, J.: Contribution of Changes in Sea
Surface Temperature and Aerosol Loading to the Decreasing Precipitation Trend
in Southern China, J. Climate, 18, 1381–1390, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Clark, T. L.: A study in cloud phase parameterization using the gamma
distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 142–155, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cohard, J.-M. and Pinty, J.-P.: A comprehensive two-moment warm
microphysical bulk scheme. I: Description and tests, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
126, 1815–1842, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Fan, J., Leung, L. R., Li, Z., Morrison, H., Chen, H., Zhou, Y., and Wang,
Q.: Aerosol impacts on clouds and precipitation in eastern China: Results
from bin and bulk microphysics, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D00K36,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016537" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JD016537</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Fritsch, J. M. and Chappell, C. F.: Numerical Prediction of Convectively
Driven Mesoscale Pressure Systems. Part 1: Convective Parameterization, J.
Atmos. Sci., 37, 1722–1733, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Fuzzi, S., Andreae, M. O., Huebert, B. J., Kulmala, M., Bond, T. C., Boy, M.,
Doherty, S. J., Guenther, A., Kanakidou, M., Kawamura, K., Kerminen, V.-M.,
Lohmann, U., Russell, L. M., and Pöschl, U.: Critical assessment of the
current state of scientific knowledge, terminology, and research needs
concerning the role of organic aerosols in the atmosphere, climate, and
global change, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 2017–2038,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-2017-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-2017-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Geoffroy, O., Brenguier, J.-L., and Burnet, F.: Parametric representation of
the cloud droplet spectra for LES warm bulk microphysical schemes, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 4835–4848, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4835-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-4835-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Chuang, C. C., and Penner, J. E.: A parameterization of cloud
droplet nulceation. Part I: Single aerosol type, Atmos. Res., 30, 197–221,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Chuang, C. C., Easter, R. C., and Penner, J. E.: A
parameterization of cloud droplet nucleation. Part II: multiple aerosol
types, Atmos. Res., 36, 39–45, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Gilleland, E., Ahijevych, D., Brown, B. G., Casati, B., and Ebert, E.:
Intercomparison of Statial Forecast Verification Methods, Weather Forecast.,
24, 1416–1430, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Gong, S. L., Barrie, L. A., Blanchet, J.-P., Salzen, K. V., Lohmann, U.,
Lesins, G., Spacek, L., Zhang, L. M., Girard, E., Lin, H., Leaitch, R.,
Leighton, H., Chylek, P., and Huang, P.: Canadian Aerosol Module: A
size-segregated simulation of atmospheric aerosol processes for climate and
air quality models 1. Module development, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4007,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD002002" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2001JD002002</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Gultepe, I. and Isaac, G. A.: The relationship between cloud droplet and
aerosol number concentrations for climate models, Int. J. Climatol., 16,
941–946, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Guo, X., Fu, D., Guo, X., and Zhang, C.: A case study of aerosol impacts on
summer convective clouds and precipitation over northern China, Atmos. Res.,
142, 142–157, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.10.006" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.10.006</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Hayder, A.-R. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation. 2.
Multi aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Horton, D. E., Skinner, C. B., Singh, D., and Diffenbaugh, N. S.: Occurrence
and persistence of future atmospheric stagnation events, Nature Climate
Change, 4, 698–703, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2272" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nclimate2272</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Houze, R. A.: Stratiform Precipitation in Regions of Convection: A
Meteorological Paradox?, B. Am. Meoteorol. Soc., 78, 2179–2196, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Jacobson, M. C., Hansson, H.-C., Noone, K. J., and Charlson, R. J.: Organic
Atmospheric Aerosols: Review and State of the Science, Rev. Geophys., 38,
267–294, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Kain, J. S.: The Kain-Fritsch Convective Parameterization: An Update, J.
Appl. Meteorol., 43, 170–181, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Kain, J. S. and Fritsch, J. M.: A One-Dimensional Entertaining/Detraining
Plume Model and Its Application in Convective Parameterization, J. Atmos.
Sci., 47, 2784–2802, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L.,
Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M.,
Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang,
J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., and Joseph, D.: The NCEP/NCAR
40-Vear Reanalysis Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–471, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P.: Notes on state-of-art investigations of aerosol effects on
precipitation: a critical review, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 015004,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/015004" target="_blank">doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/015004</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P. and Sednew, I.: Simulation of precipitation formation in the
Eastern Mediterranean coastal zone using a spectral microphysics cloud
ensemble model, Atmos. Res., 43, 77–110, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Ovtchinnikov, M., Pinsky, M., Pokrovsky, A., and Krugliak, H.:
Notes on the state-of-art numerical modeling of cloud microphysics, Atmos.
Res., 55, 159–224, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., Pokrovsky, A., and Pinsky, M.: Simulation of effects of
atmospheric aerosols on deep turbulent convective clouds using a spectral
microphysics mixed-phase cumulus cloud model. Part 1: model description and
possible applications, J. Aerosol Sci., 61, 2963–2981, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Khairoutdinov, M. and Kogan, Y.: A new cloud physics parameterization in a
large-eddy simulation model of marine stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 128,
229–243, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Kogan, Y. L.: The simulation of a convective cloud in a 3-D model with
explict microphysics. Part 1: Model description and sensitivity experiments,
J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 1160–1189, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Levin, Z. and Cotton, W. R.: Aerosol Pollution Impact on Precipitation, A
Scientific Review, Springer, the Netherlands, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Lim, K.-S. S. and Hong, S.-Y.: Development of an Effective Double-Moment
Cloud Microphysics Scheme with Prognostic Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) for
Weather and Climate Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 138, 1587–1612,
doi:1510.1175/2009MWR2968.1581, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Long, A. B.: Solutions to the droplet collection equation for polynomail
kernels, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1041–1057, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Ma, J., Chen, Y., Wang, W., Yan, P., Liu, H., Yang, S., Hu, Z., and
Lelieveld, J.: Strong air pollution causes widespread haze-cloud over China,
J. Geophy. Res., 115, D18204, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013065" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2009JD013065</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Mitternaier, M., Roberts, N., and Thompson, S. A.: A long-term assessment of
precipitation forecast skill using the fractions Skill Score, Meterol. Appl.,
20, 176–186, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.296" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/met.296</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Molinari, J. and Dudek, M.: Parameterization of Convective Prediction in
Mesoscale Numberical Models: A Critical Review, Mon. Weather Rev., 120,
326–344, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Morrison, H., Curry, J. A., and Khvorostyanov, V. I.: A New Double-Moment
Microphysics Parameterization for Application in Cloud and Climate Models.
Part I: Description, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 1665–1677, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Ogura, Y. and Cho, H.-R.: Diagnostic Determination of Cumulus Cloud
Populations from Observed Large-Scale Variables, J. Atmos. Sci., 30,
1276–1286, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Rosenfeld, D.: Atmosphere
– Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle, Science, 294, 2119–2124,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A double-moment parameterization for
simulating autoconversion, accretion and self-collection, Atmos. Res., 59,
265–281, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: from
Air pollution to Climate Change, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., New York, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Stevens, B. and Feingold, G.: Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and
precipitation in a buffered system, Nature, 461, 607–613,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nature08281</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, W. R., Middleton, P., Change, J. S., and Tang, X.: The second
generation Regional Acid Deposition Model Chemical Mechanizm for Regional Ai
Quality Modeling, J. Geophy. Res., 95, 16343–16376, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, W. R., Kirchner, F., Kuhn, M., and Seefeld, S.: A new mechanism
for regional atmospheric chemistry modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
25847–25879, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Tao, W.-K., Chen, J.-P., Li, Z., Wang, C., and Zhang, C.: Impact of Aerosols
on Convective Clouds and Precipitation, Rev. Geophys., 50, RG2001,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000369" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011RG000369</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. J.: The nuclei of natural cloud formation, II, The supersaturation
in natural clouds and the variation of cloud droplet concentration, Geofisica
Pura e Applicata, 43, 243–249, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01993560" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/BF01993560</a>, 1959.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. J.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci., 34,  1149–1152, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Walko, R. L., Cotton, W. R., Meyers, M. P., and Harrington, J. Y.: New RAMS
cloud microphysics parameterization Part 1: the single-momnet scheme, Atmos.
Res., 38, 29–62, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Zhang, X., Gong, S., Chen, Y., Shi, G., and Li, W.: Radiative
feedback of dust aerosols on the East Asian dust storms, J. Geophy. Res.,
115, D23214, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013430" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2009JD013430</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H., Shi, G. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Tan, S. C., Chen, B., Che,
H. Z., and Li, T.: Mesoscale modelling study of the interactions between
aerosols and PBL meteorology during a haze episode in China Jing–Jin–Ji and
its near surrounding region – Part 2: Aerosols' radiative feedback effects,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3277–3287, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Wang, J. Z., Gong, S. L., Zhang, X. Y., Yang, Y. Q., Hou, Q., Zhou, C. H.,
and Wang, Y. Q.: A ParameterizedMethod for
Air-Quality Diagnosis and Its Applications, Adv. Meteorol., 2012, 1–10,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/238589" target="_blank">doi:10.1155/2012/238589</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Yao, L., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Ji, D., Tang, G., Zhang, J., Sun, Y.,
Hu, B., and Xin, J.: Mechanism for the formation of the January 2013 heavy
haze pollution episode over central and eastern China, Sci. China Earth Sci.,
57, 14–25, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-013-4773-4" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s11430-013-4773-4</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y. Q., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Zhou, C. H., Hu, X. Q., Liu, H. L.,
Niu, T., and Yang, Y. Q.: Surface observation of sand and dust storm in East
Asia and its application in CUACE/Dust, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 545–553,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-545-2008" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-8-545-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Xu, G. Q., Chen, D. H., Xue, J. S., Sun, J., Shen, X. S., Shen, Y. F.,
Huang, L. P., Wu, X. J., Zhang, H. L., and Wang, S. Y.: The program structure
designing and optimizing tests of GRAPES physics, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53,
3470–3476, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Yang, S., Ma, J., Hu, Z., Yan, P., Chen, Y., and Wang, W.: Influence of
multi-chemical-component aerosols on the microphysics of warm clouds in North
China, Sci. China Earth Sci., 54, 451–461, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4075-z" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s11430-010-4075-z</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Yin, Y., Wurzler, S., Levin, Z., and Reisin, T. G.: Interactions of mineral
dust particles and clouds: effects on precipitation and cloud optical
properties, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4724, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001544" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2001JD001544</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, D., Guo, X., Gong, D., and Yao, Z.: The observational results of the
clouds microphysical structure based on the data obtained by 23 sorties
between 1989 and 2008 in Shandong Province, Acta Meteorol. Sin., 69,
195–207, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Li, G., Fan, J., Wu, D. L., and Molina, M. J.: Intensification of
Pacific storm track linked to Asian pollution, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104,
5295–5299, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700618104" target="_blank">doi:10.1073/pnas.0700618104</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R. H. and Shen, X. S.: On the development of the GRAPESA new generation
of the national operational NWP system in China, Chinese Sci. Bull., 53,
3429–3232, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R. H., Li, Q., and Zhang, R. N.: Meteorological conditions for the
persistent severe fog and haze event over eastern China in January 2013, Sci.
China Earth Sci., 57, 26–35, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-013-4774-3" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s11430-013-4774-3</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Niu, T., Zhang, X. C., Gong, S. L., Zhang, Y. M.,
and Sun, J. Y.: Atmospheric aerosol compositions in China: spatial/temporal
variability, chemical signature, regional haze distribution and comparisons
with global aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 779–799,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-779-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-779-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X. Y., Sun, J. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Li, W. J., Zhang, Q., Wang, W. G.,
Quan, J. N., Cao, G. L., Wang, J. Z.,
Yang, Y. Q., and Zhang, Y. M.: Factors contributing to haze and fog in China
(in Chinese), Chinese Sci. Bull. (Chinese Version), 58, 1178–1187,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1360/972013-150" target="_blank">doi:10.1360/972013-150</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Seigneur, C., Senfeld, H. H., Jacbson, M. Z., and Binkowski, F.
S.: Simulation of aerosl dynamics: A comparative review of algorithms used in
air quality models, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 31, 487–514, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Yin, Y., Shi, L., Duan, Y., and Wu, Z.: Analysis of Cloud
Microphysics Structure over Hebei Region during Autumn of 2007, Plateau
Meteorology, 31, 530–537, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, C., Tie, X., and Lin, Y.: A possible positive feedback of reduction of
precipitation and increase in aerosols over eastern central China, J.
Geophys. Res., 33, L11814, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025959" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006GL025959</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, C. H., Gong, S. L., Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q., Niu, T., Liu, H. L.,
Zhao, T. L., Yang, Y. Q., and Hou, Q.: Development and evaluation of an
operational SDS forecasting system for East Asia: CUACE/Dust, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 787–798, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-787-2008" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-8-787-2008</a>, 2008.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, C.-H., Gong, S., Zhang, X.-Y., Liu, H. L., Xue, M., Cao, G. L., An, X.
Q., Che, H. Z., Zhang, Y. M., and Niu, T.: Towards the improvements of
simulating the chemical and optical properties of Chinese aerosols using an
online coupled model CUACE/Aero, Tellus B, 64, 18965,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.18965" target="_blank">doi:10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.18965</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
