<?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" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-18-10593-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Aerosol–cloud interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>– Part 2: Meteorological ensemble</article-title><alt-title>Aerosol–cloud interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Aerosol--cloud interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~K.~Miltenberger et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Miltenberger</surname><given-names>Annette K.</given-names></name>
          <email>a.miltenberger@leeds.ac.uk</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3320-4272</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Field</surname><given-names>Paul R.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Hill</surname><given-names>Adrian A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Shipway</surname><given-names>Ben J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Wilkinson</surname><given-names>Jonathan M.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6906-4999</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute of Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Met Office, Exeter, UK</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Annette K. Miltenberger (a.miltenberger@leeds.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>25</day><month>July</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>14</issue>
      <fpage>10593</fpage><lpage>10613</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>13</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>26</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>29</day><month>June</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>July</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e125">The relative contribution of variations in
meteorological and aerosol initial and boundary conditions to the variability
in modelled cloud properties is investigated with a high-resolution ensemble
(30 members). In the investigated case, moderately deep convection develops
along sea-breeze convergence zones over the southwestern peninsula of the UK.
A detailed analysis of the mechanism of aerosol–cloud interactions in this
case has been presented in the first part of this study
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.1"/>.</p>
    <p id="d1e131">The meteorological ensemble (10 members) varies by about a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> in
boundary-layer moisture convergence, surface precipitation, and cloud
fraction, while aerosol number concentrations are varied by a factor of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> between the three considered aerosol scenarios. If ensemble members
are paired according to the meteorological initial and boundary conditions,
aerosol-induced changes are consistent across the ensemble. Aerosol-induced
changes in CDNC (cloud droplet number concentration), cloud fraction, cell number and size, outgoing shortwave
radiation (OSR), instantaneous and mean precipitation rates, and precipitation
efficiency (PE) are statistically significant at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level, but
changes in cloud top height or condensate gain are not. In contrast, if
ensemble members are not paired according to meteorological conditions,
aerosol-induced changes are statistically significant only for CDNC, cell
number and size, outgoing shortwave radiation, and precipitation efficiency.
The significance of aerosol-induced changes depends on the aerosol scenarios
compared, i.e. an increase or decrease relative to the standard scenario.</p>
    <p id="d1e159">A simple statistical analysis of
the results suggests that a large number of realisations (typically <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
of meteorological conditions within the uncertainty of a single day are
required for retrieving robust aerosol signals in most cloud properties. Only
for CDNC and shortwave radiation small samples are sufficient.</p>
    <p id="d1e172">While the results are strictly only valid for the investigated
case, the presented evidence combined with previous studies highlights the
necessity for careful consideration of intrinsic predictability,
meteorological conditions, and co-variability between aerosol and
meteorological conditions in observational or modelling studies on aerosol
indirect effects.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e182">Clouds and precipitation are an integral part of the
atmospheric system relevant for weather and climate. Considerable uncertainty
remains in our understanding and modelling of clouds and their interaction
with other parts of the climate system. The main issues are an incomplete
physical understanding of cloud microphysical processes, a lack of
quantitative formulations representing microphysical processes on model grid
scales which are typically several orders of magnitude larger than the
process scales, and the many non-linear interactions between different
components of the system. In recent decades, the modification of cloud
properties by aerosols has received particular attention, as anthropogenic
aerosol emissions have changed strongly over the historic period.</p>
      <?pagebreak page10594?><p id="d1e185">Many modelling studies have investigated the impacts of an aerosol change on either isolated clouds or
larger cloud fields but found different responses of the studied clouds
depending on environmental conditions, model formulations, duration of
simulations, and domain size <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54 bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx44 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.2"><named-content content-type="pre">recent reviews
by</named-content></xref>. Recent studies have
highlighted that it is necessary to simulate entire cloud fields over long
periods in order to quantify a climate-relevant aerosol signal
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20 bib1.bibx56 bib1.bibx49" id="paren.3"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref> due to
interactions between clouds and their thermodynamic environment. These
interactions can at least partly compensate for the large changes simulated for
individual clouds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31 bib1.bibx49" id="paren.4"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. In a case study of
tropical deep convection, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="text.5"/> found that locally invigorated
convection in polluted conditions induces stronger large-scale subsidence
resulting in an overall suppression of precipitation on a cloud-system scale.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="text.6"/> demonstrated with simulations extending over three summer
seasons that aerosol perturbations can produce large local changes in
precipitation, while not significantly changing the mean precipitation.</p>
      <p id="d1e209">The highly non-linear nature of convective cloud dynamics and microphysics calls
for the use of large ensembles due to a potentially rapid growth of small
perturbations to the system <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58" id="paren.7"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. While the importance of
predictability limits has been acknowledged in weather forecasting, its
implications for the evaluation of cloud microphysics parameterisations or
the quantification of aerosol–cloud interactions has only been acknowledged in
a few studies
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21 bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx39" id="paren.8"/>.
To our knowledge, the first study to highlight the importance of intrinsic
predictability for cloud microphysics evaluation and aerosol–cloud
interactions is <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="text.9"/>. Along with changes to various
parameters in the cloud microphysics, cloud–radiation interaction, and CCN
number concentrations, they applied random perturbations to the large-scale
forcing, the surface fluxes, and nudging timescale in their 2-D simulations
of deep tropical convection. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="text.10"/> investigated the
sensitivity of convective clouds over the ARM Southern Great Plains site to
the choice of cloud microphysical parameterisations and perturbed initial
conditions. While they found the mean hydrometeor profile and cloud fraction
to be strongly dependent on the chosen cloud microphysical scheme, the
variability of cloud fraction, precipitable water, and surface precipitation
induced by different microphysical schemes was similar to those resulting
from perturbed initial conditions. In a similar modelling framework to
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="text.11"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="text.12"/> also applied random
perturbations to simulations of deep tropical convection based on the
Tropical Warm Pool International Cloud Experiment. They found a large
variability in top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes between ensemble members
generated by modest perturbations to the boundary-layer temperature
structure. In this case, therefore, a large ensemble with 240 members was
required to retrieve a robust aerosol-induced signal in the top-of-atmosphere
radiative fluxes. In their ensemble, surface precipitation was insensitive to
aerosol changes. The simulations in these studies use large-scale forcing
time series, which provide realistic time variations in forcing, but do not
allow for a two-way interaction of the clouds with the large-scale forcing.
While this avoids the even larger complexity of cloud-induced changes to
large-scale circulation, it is ultimately necessary to include this
interaction in order to quantify the impact of uncertainties in cloud
microphysical processes or changes in aerosol concentration on the
atmospheric system.</p>
      <p id="d1e233">The relative importance of meteorological and aerosol
conditions for cloud properties also has implications for obtaining
observational evidence of aerosol–cloud interactions. Many observational
studies of aerosol-induced changes in cloud properties need to rely on
correlations between bulk parameters
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13 bib1.bibx27 bib1.bibx23" id="paren.13"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, which raises the
question of co-variability and coincidence
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53 bib1.bibx23" id="paren.14"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. The importance of cloud dynamics
in observational datasets has recently been demonstrated by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="text.15"/>.
The study analysed the correlation of aerosol, cloud dynamics, and a range of
cloud properties for shallow warm-phase clouds over the ARM Southern Great
Plains site. They showed that the variability of cloud radiative properties
was dominated by cloud dynamics rather than cloud microphysical properties.</p>
      <p id="d1e250">One approach to investigate the role of intrinsic predictability and the
relative importance of aerosol and meteorological variability is the use of
convection-permitting ensemble systems. Ensemble forecasting is now an
important component of operational forecasting and is increasingly used at
convection-permitting or even higher spatial resolutions
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx35 bib1.bibx4" id="paren.16"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. The use of
convection-permitting ensemble forecasts provides a means for assessing the
magnitude of aerosol-induced changes in the context of variations in the
cloud and precipitation evolution due to perturbations in the meteorological
conditions, which are consistent with the uncertainty in available
meteorological observation. Besides offering insight into the questions of
robustness and observability of aerosol-induced changes, the ensemble
approach explores whether perturbations of the aerosol environment should be
included in future forecasting systems for quantitative precipitation
forecasts.</p>
      <p id="d1e258">In the present study, we investigate the robustness and relative
importance of aerosol-induced changes in mixed-phase, sea-breeze-related
convective cloud in high-resolution ensemble simulations with perturbed
meteorological and aerosol initial and lateral boundary conditions. The case
was selected from the COnvective Precipitation Experiment (COPE) that was
conducted over the southwestern peninsula of the UK in 2013
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6 bib1.bibx32" id="paren.17"/>. On the selected day (3 August 2013) deep
convective clouds with maximum cloud top heights of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> km developed
in the late morning along converging sea-breeze fronts. The line of
convective clouds remained roughly stationary along<?pagebreak page10595?> the main axis of the
peninsula until the late afternoon. Generally, new cells formed at the
southwestern tip of the peninsula and merged into larger cloud clusters while
propagating northeastwards along the line. Simulations of this case were
conducted with the Unified Model (UM) at a spatial resolution of 250 m using
the newly developed Cloud–AeroSol Interacting Microphysics (CASIM) module
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx25 bib1.bibx22 bib1.bibx38" id="paren.18"/>. The
comparison of the baseline simulation with observational data and the
sensitivity of cloud properties to aerosol perturbations was presented in the
first part of this study <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.19"/> and is briefly
summarised here: increasing aerosol concentrations suppress precipitation in
the morning. With progressing organisation of the clouds along the sea-breeze
fronts, the response transitions into precipitation enhancement. In the early
phase, precipitation decreases continuously with aerosol concentration (0.1
to 30 times the observed value), while in the afternoon the largest accumulated
precipitation occurs with the observed aerosol profile. Limitations on cloud
deepening from a mid-tropospheric stable layer were hypothesised to inhibit a
further increase in precipitation for aerosol number concentrations larger
than the observed values. Vertical velocities increase in the convective core
regions with aerosol concentrations. However, contrary to the convective
invigoration hypothesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.20"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, changes in latent heat
release are dominated by changes in the warm-phase part of the cloud with
very small changes above the 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C line. It was hypothesised that
accompanying changes in the cloud field structure (fewer, larger cells with
increasing aerosol) were important for the changes in latent heat release
from condensation.</p>
      <p id="d1e292">In this paper, we extend the analysis of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.21"/> by including simulations with perturbed
meteorological conditions in the analysis. With the combined perturbed
meteorology and aerosol initial condition ensemble we investigate whether the
aerosol-induced changes are (i) robust to and (ii) significant relative to
small changes in the meteorological initial conditions. The paper is
structured as follows: Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> provides details on the model
set-up and observational data used in this study. The ensemble simulations
are compared to observational data in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/>. In
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>, we discuss the variability of cloud properties in
the perturbed meteorology-only ensemble, while the impact of aerosol
perturbations on clouds and precipitation for individual ensembles members is
assessed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>. Finally, the results from the full
ensemble, i.e. including perturbations to meteorology and aerosols, are
presented in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S6"/>. The findings are summarised in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S7"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Model and data</title>
      <p id="d1e317">The initial condition ensemble discussed in this paper is constructed by
downscaling selected members from the operational global ensemble system of
the Met Office (MOGREPS, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="altparen.22"/>) over the southwestern
peninsula of the UK. The global model ensemble is recomputed from the Met
Office operational analysis and initial condition perturbation for 18:00 UTC
on 2 August 2013. The global model version and set-up used for the
operational forecast in 2013 are employed for the rerun (UM, version 8.2,
PS31 configuration, N400 resolution, i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km in
mid-latitudes). This includes stochastic physics as described in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="text.23"/>. The control run (no initial condition perturbations
applied) and nine global ensemble members provide the initial and boundary
conditions for the higher-resolution regional simulations. The control run is
included in the term “ensemble members” if not stated differently. The
selection of the ensemble members for dynamical downscaling is based on the
time series of moisture convergence and moist static energy convergence
computed over the regional model domain from the global model fields
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). These time series are then used to construct a
similarity matrix by summing the Euclidean distances of moisture convergence
and moist static energy convergence. Using the algorithm by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="text.24"/>
nine clusters are defined and from each cluster the closest member to the
mean cluster time series is chosen for downscaling. Note that, while this
procedure provides a sampling of different time series, it does not
necessarily retain the statistical properties of the global ensemble. It is
known that convection-permitting ensembles constructed by downscaling global
ensemble members do not represent the mesoscale error characteristic
correctly <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx5" id="paren.25"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. As a result
convection-permitting ensemble forecasts are often under-dispersive
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42 bib1.bibx47" id="paren.26"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Our high-resolution ensemble will
hence represent some unknown fraction of the true meteorological uncertainty
for the studied day. Most likely the meteorological uncertainty is
underestimated in the current study. Although the ensemble selection and
initialisation of the ensemble should be improved in future studies, we do
not think that this is a strong caveat to our main conclusions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e355">Convergence of moist static energy <bold>(a)</bold> and moisture
<bold>(b)</bold> across the 1 km domain computed from the global ensemble. The
grey lines show all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> ensemble members in the global ensemble and the
red lines the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> members selected for the regional ensemble simulations.
The selection procedure is described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e386">Regional simulations with a grid spacing of 1 km (500 by 500 grid points)
are started at 00:00 UTC on 3 August 2013 from the 10 selected global model
runs. These simulations provide the initial and boundary conditions for
simulations in a second set of nested simulations with a horizontal grid
spacing of 250 m (900 by 600 grid points). For the regional simulations, we
use the UM version 10.3 (GA6 configuration, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx57" id="altparen.27"/>) with the
CASIM module. In contrast, to the global ensemble, we do not use the
stochastic physics module for the regional ensemble, as we aim to investigate
the role of initial condition uncertainty. The model set-up for the regional
simulations is identical to the set-up described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.28"/>.
The control simulations are identical to the simulations used in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.29"/>, with the only difference being that the simulations
discussed here use the cloud droplet number predicted by CASIM instead of a
prescribed value for the<?pagebreak page10596?> computation of the radiative fluxes. Note that the
aerosol direct effect is not included in the simulations. In all regional
simulations, moisture conservation is enforced according to
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx3" id="text.30"/>. All simulations are run for 24 h. If
not stated otherwise, the analysis presented in this paper focusses on the
time period between 09:00 and 19:00 UTC, i.e. the time period of main
convective activity. Also note that ensemble members have been sorted
according to the large-scale moisture convergence computed from the fluxes at
the domain boundary: ensemble member 1 has the largest large-scale moisture
convergence and ensemble member 9 the smallest.</p>
      <p id="d1e401">Cloud microphysical
processes are parameterised within the CASIM module which in this study is
configured as a double-moment microphysics scheme with five different
hydrometeor categories. The CASIM module can represent the interactions
between aerosol fields and cloud microphysical properties. For the ensemble
simulations, we use the so-called “passive-aerosols” mode: aerosol fields
are used for droplet activation and ice nucleation, but are not altered by
cloud microphysical processes. The impact of this choice on the
representation of aerosol–cloud interactions is discussed in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.31"/>. Aerosol initial and lateral boundary conditions are
derived from aircraft data as described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.32"/>. In the
following, simulations with the aerosol profile derived from observations are
referred to as “standard-aerosol” simulations. Additional simulations of
each ensemble member are performed with perturbed aerosol profiles, for which
aerosol number densities and mass mixing ratio are multiplied at all
altitudes by a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> (“high aerosol”) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>
(“low aerosol”), respectively. Hence, the mean aerosol radius is retained
in the perturbed profiles. Accordingly, the entire ensemble with perturbed
meteorological and aerosol initial conditions has 30 members in total.</p>
      <p id="d1e425">For
the evaluation of the ensemble with the standard-aerosol profile, we use the
same set of observations as in the first part of this study. These include
radiosonde and aircraft data from the COPE field campaign and data from the
operational radar network. Details about these datasets can be found in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.33"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Evaluation of ensemble simulations</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Radar reflectivity and surface precipitation</title>
      <p id="d1e442">In all ensemble simulations, a convergence line develops roughly over the
centre of the peninsula in the early afternoon (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). The
convective clouds are associated with convergence zones along sea-breeze
fronts. However, the members vary in the amount of clouds and there are some
differences in the location and the orientation of the main cloud line. These
differences are not specific to the time instance shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>, but persist throughout the simulations. Differences
between meteorological ensemble members are further discussed in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>, while we focus here on the comparison of the
ensemble to the observational data.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e453">Column maximum radar reflectivity over 250 m domain at 14:00 UTC
from the control simulation (top left) and the nine ensemble members using the
standard-aerosol profile.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e464">Comparison of domain-mean surface precipitation from model
simulations and radar observations (red line). Values from the control
simulation with the standard-aerosol profile are shown by the dark blue
dashed line. The mean (envelope) of all ensemble members using the
standard-aerosol profiles is shown by the dark blue solid line (shading) and
those of all ensemble members irrespective of the used aerosol profile by the
solid cyan line (shading).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page10598?><p id="d1e474">Consistent with the similar meteorological evolution of the ensemble members, the domain-average
precipitation has a similar temporal evolution with increasing values during
the morning hours and maximum values between 13:00 and 16:00 UTC
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>). Domain-average precipitation rates from the
control forecast (dashed blue line) are mostly within the spread of the
ensemble members (blue shading), although the ensemble-mean domain-average
precipitation rate is about a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> smaller than the control
during the period of main convective activity (12:00–17:00 UTC). The spread
of the ensemble including aerosol perturbations (cyan shading) is not much
larger than the ensemble spread based on perturbed meteorological conditions
alone, particularly after about 14:30 UTC. The ensemble mean is almost
identical for both ensembles. The domain-average precipitation rates derived
from radar (Radarnet <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IV</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24 bib1.bibx36" id="altparen.34"/>) fall
mostly outside the spread of the ensemble. This indicates that either the
ensemble is under-dispersive or that there are issues with the radar-derived
surface precipitation. While the model-derived surface precipitation is the
sedimentation flux at the surface, the radar-derived surface precipitation is
computed from the low-level radar reflectivity according to
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.35"/>. Accordingly the modelled and radar-derived surface
precipitation products involve different assumptions, e.g. on sub-cloud
evaporation, which has been shown to affect radar-derived surface precipitation rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.36"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Nevertheless,
previous evaluation studies of convection-permitting ensemble simulations
have also reported precipitation forecasts to be under-dispersive over longer
evaluation periods <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42 bib1.bibx47" id="paren.37"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, as not all
sources of uncertainty are taken into account. For example, structural or
parametric uncertainty in the model physics is not considered and
perturbations to the initial and boundary conditions may not be fully
representative of the true uncertainty. The incorporation of perturbations to
the aerosol initial and boundary conditions does not improve the comparison.
However, the under-dispersivity of the ensemble does not strongly impact the
major conclusions of our study, as we interpret the meteorological
uncertainty as a lower limit of meteorological variability in the discussion
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S7"/>). <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e515">Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the time-integrated net (blue), lateral
(red), and surface moisture flux (green) over the model domain in the
boundary layer for each ensemble member. Panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the
time-integrated condensate gain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the different ensemble members.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e537">The underestimation of domain-average precipitation in the ensemble is,
similarly to the results in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.38"/>, caused by a combination
of a too-small precipitating area fraction and too-low occurrence frequency
of medium precipitation rates in precipitating areas (not shown). While the
observed in-cloud precipitation rate distribution is outside of the ensemble
spread (Fig. S1 in the Supplement), the simulated distributions of column
maximum radar reflectivity and of low-level (750 m a.g.l.) radar
reflectivity agree well with the observed distribution (Fig. S2). In contrast
to the domain-average precipitation time series, the ensemble spread in the
radar reflectivity distributions increases significantly if aerosol
perturbations are considered in addition to meteorological initial condition
perturbations (Fig. S2). However, the ensemble-mean distributions are almost
identical for members with and without aerosol perturbations.</p>
      <p id="d1e543">The 3-D radar composite
available for this case provides information about the vertical structure of
the clouds. Here we compare the simulated and observed altitude of the
highest occurrence of a radar reflectivity larger than 18 dBZ, which is
frequently used in radar products to measure cloud depth
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28 bib1.bibx48" id="paren.39"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. The ensemble mean is closer to
the observed evolution than the control run (within 200 m, Fig. S3). The
inclusion of perturbed aerosol initial and boundary conditions has only a
small impact on the ensemble-mean height of the 18 dBZ contour (maximum
difference: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m). Also, for other reflectivity thresholds
(5–25 dBZ), the observed mean height is within the ensemble spread and the
difference to the ensemble mean is generally smaller than 500 m (not shown).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Radiosonde data</title>
      <p id="d1e567">Thermodynamic profiles are available at 2-hourly intervals from
radiosondes released at Davidstow (50.64<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 4.61<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W). These
profiles are compared to the thermodynamic structure of the closest model
grid column from the simulation with the standard-aerosol profile (Fig. S4).
The overall (out of cloud) structure of the temperature and dew-point
temperature profiles are similar to the observed structure for all times and
ensemble members. The observed temperature profile generally falls within the
ensemble spread except between 550 and 400 hPa. Also, the observed dew-point
temperature profile is generally contained within the ensemble spread, with
the exception of a lower observed humidity below 900 hPa at 15:20 UTC. All
ensemble members have a stable layer between 5 and 6 km altitude, which is
an important factor for the cloud top height distribution
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.40"/>. Ensemble members differ mainly in the humidity
above 600 hPa, with the altitude of the driest point in this layer varying
by about 100 hPa.</p>
      <p id="d1e591">The height of the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level and the lifting condensation level corroborate the good
agreement between observed and modelled profiles for the duration of the
simulation and all aerosol scenarios: maximum deviations are about 300 m for
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level height and 400 m in the lifting condensation<?pagebreak page10599?> level
(Fig. S5). While the observed lifting condensation level falls within the
ensemble spread (except at 15:20 UTC), the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level is
generally outside the ensemble spread (except at 13:50 UTC, but the
radiosonde passed through clouds).</p>
      <p id="d1e627">Overall the ensemble reflects the cloud and precipitation evolution, as well
as thermodynamic structure indicated by observational data. However, the
ensemble does not improve on the performance of the control run. Overall the
ensemble performance provides confidence that the most important physical
mechanisms are well enough represented to conduct aerosol perturbation
experiments.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Cloud property variability in the meteorological ensemble (standard-aerosol scenario only)</title>
      <p id="d1e637">Given the overall similar meteorological situation in the ensemble members,
i.e. a line of convective clouds forming along sea-breeze convergence zones,
the main impact of the perturbed meteorological initial conditions should be
(i) perturbations to vertical lifting and hence condensation and (ii) the
vertical cloud structure by modifications to the vertical wind shear and the
thermodynamic profiles. The discussion in this section focusses on the
meteorological ensemble with the standard-aerosol profile. Differences in the
large-scale moisture convergence, upstream thermodynamic profiles, and
sea-breeze strength are discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS1"/>. The resulting
variation in cloud properties is described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS2"/>.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Large-scale convergence and condensate formation</title>
      <p id="d1e649">The meteorological ensemble members have been selected on the basis of the
moisture and moist static energy convergence (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>), as the
large-scale moisture convergence should influence the amount of lifting and
hence condensate formation. The large-scale convergence is diagnosed from the
moisture fluxes at the domain boundaries. Here, we focus on the
boundary-layer moisture convergence, which is most relevant for the
cloud-base mass flux. As expected, ensemble members have very different
boundary-layer moisture convergence (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a, red symbols).
Consistent with this variability, the condensate gain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e. the
domain-integrated condensation and deposition rate, varies across ensemble
members with decreasing values for members with smaller large-scale
boundary-layer moisture convergence (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>b). The
correspondence between moisture convergence and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is further improved if
the net moisture flux at the top of the boundary layer is considered
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a, blue symbols), which is diagnosed from the sum of the
moisture flux at the domain boundaries (red symbols) and the surface moisture
flux (green symbols). The surface moisture flux adds some modifications to
the boundary-layer moisture budget, e.g. compare total and lateral
moisture convergence for ensemble members 3 and 4 and member 7 and 8,
respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e675">In addition to the large-scale
moisture convergence, differences in meteorological initial and boundary
conditions could also result in different local convergence patterns, i.e.
sea-breeze strength. Differences in sea-breeze strength between ensemble
members can contribute to the variability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> across the meteorological
ensemble. The main controlling factors for sea-breeze strength are the
temperature difference between sea and land, the large-scale wind direction
relative to the coastline, and the background wind speed
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx37" id="paren.41"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.42"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="text.43"/> have demonstrated the importance of differential heating
of the land surface and the interaction with the background wind field for
stationary convergence lines and associated convective activity over the
southwest<?pagebreak page10600?> peninsula of the UK. The profiles of the wind components,
temperature, and specific humidity are shown in Fig. S6; the variation in the
land–sea temperature gradient in Fig. S7a; and the “low-level” convergence,
i.e. the integrated convergence of the 10 m wind speed over the peninsula, as
indicator of the sea-breeze strength in Fig. S7b.</p>
      <p id="d1e696">The temperature difference between land and sea increases from
0.9–1.4 K in the morning to 1.8–2.0 K by noon. Only in ensemble members 1
and 2, the temperature difference remains smaller than 1.5 K (Fig. S7a).
These members have a higher cloud fraction in the morning (not shown), which
is likely related to a relatively large large-scale moisture
convergence. The higher cloud fraction reduces radiative heating of the land
surface explaining the smaller peak land–sea temperature difference. The
wind speed in the boundary layer varies between about 8 and 11 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" 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>
and increases to values of 13–18 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" 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> at 4 km altitude (Fig. S6a).
The wind direction is generally from the southwest with a variability of
about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a shift towards a more easterly direction at higher
altitudes (Fig. S6b).</p>
      <p id="d1e734">The low-level
convergence consistently increases towards noon as is expected for sea-breeze
systems (Fig. S7b). Overall there are only small differences in the
time-integrated low-level convergence between ensemble members. This suggests
that neither the variability in the land–sea temperature difference
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) nor the variability in the low-level wind speed
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" 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>) and direction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) has a
significant impact on the sea-breeze strength.</p>
      <p id="d1e783">Other variables in the initial conditions important for cloud and
precipitation formation are the temperature and moisture profiles (Fig. S6c
and d). The temperature structure in all ensemble members is very similar,
with a well-mixed boundary layer below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">800</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, an almost moist-adiabatic temperature gradient up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> hPa, and a layer of
almost constant temperature between 500 and 450 hPa. As a result of the small
variation in the temperature profile, the average and maximum CAPE values are
similar for all ensemble members (100–160 J kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" 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>, Fig. S8). Also,
variations in the moisture content are small, with difference between ensemble
members smaller than 0.5 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" 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> for all altitudes. The altitude of the
driest point in the profile varies by about 100 hPa between ensemble members
(Fig. S4).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Cloud property variability</title>
      <p id="d1e837">The different meteorological initial and boundary conditions result in
different boundary-layer moisture convergence, thermodynamic and moisture
profiles, and wind shear as discussed in the previous sections. These changes
can impact cloud properties, cloud field structure, and precipitation
formation.</p>
      <p id="d1e840">The cloud droplet number
concentration (CDNC) at cloud base is almost invariant across ensemble members
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>), suggesting relatively small differences in the
cloud-base vertical velocity distribution (Fig. S9b). Cloud top cloud droplet
number concentrations also display little variability between meteorological
ensemble members (Fig. S9a).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e847">Cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) at cloud base for
different ensemble members (abscissa) using different aerosol profiles
(colours). CDNC at cloud base is computed as the average CDNC within
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> m above the lowest point in each grid column that has a cloud or ice
mass mixing ratio larger than 1 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" 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>. The horizontal line inside
the boxes indicates the mean CDNC; the upper and lower edges the 25th and
75th percentile, respectively; and the whiskers the 1st and 99th percentile.
The statistics are computed over all qualifying grid points in the domain
between 09:00 and 19:00 UTC and therefore reflect the spatial and temporal
variability of CDNC. The last column provides the distribution of the
ensemble means, with the dot representing the average of the ensemble means
and the bars the spread of the ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e875">The cloud field structure is
described in terms of the cloud fraction, cell number and mean size, and
cloud top height. Cells are defined as coherent areas with a column maximum
radar reflectivity larger than 25 dBZ. Cloud top height is defined by the
highest model level with a condensed water content larger than
1 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" 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> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.44"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Cloud fraction is calculated
as the areal fraction of the domain with condensed water path larger than
0.001 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.45"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Cell number
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>a) and cloud fraction (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>) in
general decrease with decreasing boundary-layer moisture convergence and
condensate gain. However, variations in mean cell size are quite small
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>b). Mean cloud top height varies by about 750 m
between ensemble members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a), with largest (smallest)
values for ensemble member 2 and 9 (5). Variations in mean cloud top height
are in general consistent with those of the equilibrium level pressure
(Fig. S10): for example, the equilibrium level pressure in ensemble member 5
is largest, while members 2 and 9 have the smallest equilibrium level
pressure. The distribution between low, medium, and high cloud tops varies by
about 20 % between the ensemble members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e926">Cell number <bold>(a)</bold> and mean cell size <bold>(b)</bold>. Cells are
defined as continuous areas of column maximum radar reflectivity exceeding
25 dBZ. The horizontal line inside the boxes indicates the time mean
value; the upper and lower edges the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively;
and the whiskers the 1st and 99th percentile. These statistics reflect the
temporal variability of the considered variables. The last column in each
panel provides the distribution of the ensemble means, with the dot
representing the average of the ensemble means and the bars the spread of the
ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page10601?><p id="d1e941"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Precipitation formation is described by the condensation
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the precipitation efficiency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. These
describe the fraction of the incoming moisture flux that is converted to
condensate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the fraction of the condensate gain that is
converted to surface precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). As expected,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> varies strongly across ensemble members and in general
decreases with decreasing large-scale moisture convergence
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a). In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> does not vary
systematically with the large-scale convergence (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a).
Ensemble member 4 has a significantly lower PE than the other ensemble
members, which is likely related to the high fraction of shallow clouds with
cloud tops below 2.5 km and a therefore small contribution of mixed-phase
processes to domain-wide precipitation formation. Conversely, ensemble member
6 has a relatively large PE and the largest fraction of clouds with tops
above 4.3 km. The relatively small differences in precipitation efficiency
(between 0.17 and 0.27) are consistent with the almost invariant cloud
droplet number concentrations for all ensemble members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>).
The combined effect of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> results in a variation
of about a factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> in the mean precipitation rate
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a) and the accumulated precipitation (Fig. S11a and b).
The precipitation variability corresponds in general to the variations in
large-scale moisture convergence with some modulations by the different
precipitation efficiencies (e.g. compare ensemble member 2 and control or
ensemble members 5 and 6). Variations in the mean condensed water path are
consistent with variations in the condensate generation between ensemble
members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>b); i.e. the condensed water path decreases in
members with smaller moisture convergence and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1027">Mean reflected
shortwave radiation ranges from 130 to 155 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>a). The reflected shortwave is influenced by the cloud
cover and the cloud droplet number concentrations. The largest (smallest)
outgoing shortwave flux is predicted for the ensemble members with the
largest (smallest) cloud fraction, i.e. ensemble 1 (8). Since the CDNC
variability is small (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>), the variations in cloud fraction
between ensemble members dominate the variability of outgoing shortwave
radiation (OSR). Changes in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) are on the order of
3 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>b). The outgoing longwave radiation is
influenced by the surface temperature, the cloud top height, and the cloud
fraction. While differences in the cloud top height distribution contribute
to the variability in outgoing longwave radiation, variations in the clear
sky outgoing longwave radiation dominate the overall variability due to the
relatively small cloud fraction (Fig. S12).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Cloud property changes between ensemble members with different aerosol
and identical meteorological initial and boundary conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e1068">The simulation of each meteorological ensemble member was conducted with
three different aerosol profiles: a so-called standard-aerosol scenario,
which was derived from aircraft observations; and low- and high-aerosol scenarios,
which have a factor of 10 lower and higher aerosol number
concentration, respectively. The impact of the perturbed aerosol profiles on
cloud and cloud field properties as well as precipitation formation in the
control simulation has been discussed in the first part of this study. In
this section, we compare the aerosol signal in the different meteorological
ensemble members, i.e. the difference in realisations with different aerosol
scenarios but identical meteorological<?pagebreak page10602?> initial and boundary conditions.
Therefore, we test the robustness of aerosol-induced changes to small
perturbations in the meteorological conditions. To quantify the significance
of aerosol-induced changes we use a two-sided <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test for ensemble members
paired according to meteorological conditions (Table 1). Using paired
ensemble members reflects the interdependence of cloud properties in
realisations with different aerosol but identical meteorological initial and
boundary conditions. Significance is tested at the 5 % level.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1081">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values from two-sided <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> tests with the null hypothesis of
no change in the variable (rows) between two aerosol scenarios (columns) for
all ensemble members. The results for ensemble members paired according to
meteorological conditions and unpaired members are provided. Bold numbers
indicate statistical significance at the 5 % level.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Low and standard </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Standard and high </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Low and high </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">paired</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">unpaired</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">paired</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">unpaired</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">paired</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">unpaired</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CDNC cloud base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>8.31e-16</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>1.23e-15</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>7.52e-15</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>1.09e-14</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>5.26e-15</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>6.15e-15</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.00154</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.643</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.00310</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.737</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.00190</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.431</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cell number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>8.99e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.00178</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>1.49e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.00591</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>7.68e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>8.33e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cell area</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>3.94e-9</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>9.91e-9</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>6.03e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.000326</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>1.05e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>1.25e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud top height</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.000243</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.325</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.549</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.678</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.104</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.204</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Deep cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>2.61e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.222</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.465</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.914</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>2.63e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.263</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean precipitation rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.0123</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.748</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.000555</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.313</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>3.16e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.174</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>5.78e-3</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.273</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>1.31e-4</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.0145</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>1.32e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>9.18e-4</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.00140</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.874</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.878</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.994</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.0164</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.8823</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.00501</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.896</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.803</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.991</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.0363</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.906</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1.15e-4</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.794</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.000190</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.753</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>2.08e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.571</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.0144</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.701</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.000372</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.248</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>2.84e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.120</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Condensed WP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.000258</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5323</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.00748</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.730</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.000176</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.342</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Frozen WP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1.13e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.0159</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.000341</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.222</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>9.17e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>0.00192</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Liquid WP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>0.00450</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.848</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.0152</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.905</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.000477</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.756</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud WP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>2.34e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.144</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>6.99e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.396</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>2.81e-6</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>0.031</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OSR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>6.80e-7</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.0154</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>9.27e-7</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.113</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>7.63e-7</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>0.000799</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OLR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>8.33e-5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.817</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.00576</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.894</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.000373</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.717</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Cloud droplet number concentration</title>
      <p id="d1e1700">The cloud-base CDNC is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> for all ensemble members
and aerosol profiles. All ensemble members show a consistent increase in the
cloud-base CDNC by about a factor of 7 between the low (standard) and the
standard (high) aerosol scenarios. Also, the aerosol-induced change in
cloud top CDNC is similar in all meteorological ensemble members with a
change by about a factor of 5.5 for each factor of 10 increase in the background
aerosol concentrations (Fig. S9a). The small differences between ensemble
members suggest only minor changes in the cloud-base vertical velocity
distribution. The aerosol-induced changes in CDNC are highly significant
(Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Cloud field structure</title>
      <p id="d1e1711">The cloud field structure is described in terms of cloud fraction, cell
number and size, and cloud top height. The number of cells decreases with
increasing background aerosol concentrations in all ensemble members
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>a). Conversely, the cell area increases
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>b). The changes in cell number and area largely
compensate for each other, so that the cloud fraction displays little sensitivity to the
aerosol scenarios with changes being smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>). Although small, the aerosol-induced change in
cloud fraction is consistent across all ensemble members. It has been
hypothesised in the first part of this study that the slower conversion of
condensate to precipitation in high-aerosol conditions allows clouds to grow
larger and to merge with other updraft cores resulting in overall fewer, but
larger clouds. Also, energetic constraints potentially limit an increase in
overall lifting and cloud fraction. The changes in cell number, mean cell
area, and cloud fraction are all significant for paired meteorology
reflecting the consistency in the sign of the aerosol-induced changes across
the ensemble members (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e1729">Cloud fraction in the different ensemble members. Cloud fraction is
the fraction of the domain for which the condensed water path is larger than
1 g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The horizontal line inside the boxes indicates the time mean
value; the upper and lower edges the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively;
and the whiskers the 1st and 99th percentile. These statistics reflect the
temporal variability of the considered variables. The last column in each
panel provides the distribution of the ensemble means, with the dot
representing the average of the ensemble means and the bars the spread of the
ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1752">Mean cloud top height <bold>(a)</bold> and fraction of clouds with
cloud-top-specific altitude bands <bold>(b)</bold>. Cloud top height is the height of
the highest vertical level in each grid column with a condensate mass mixing
ratio larger than 1 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" 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>. The horizontal line inside the boxes
indicates the time mean value; the upper and lower edges the 25th and 75th
percentile, respectively; and the whiskers the 1st and 99th percentile. These
statistics reflect the temporal variability of the considered variables. The
last column in each panel provides the distribution of the ensemble means,
with the dot representing the average of the ensemble means and the bars the
spread of the ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1780">The mean cloud top height is shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a and the fraction of cloud tops in different
altitude ranges in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>b. In all ensemble members, the
mean cloud top height increases from the low- to the standard-aerosol
scenario. The increase in mean cloud top is due to an increase in the
fraction of cloud tops higher than 4.3 km. In the control run and ensemble
members 4 and 6, this is accompanied by a reduction in the medium altitude
fraction, while in all other members changes in the low cloud top fraction
dominate. For an increase in aerosol number concentration above the
standard-aerosol scenario, the time-average mean cloud top height (diamonds in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a) does not increase further (members 1 and 2) or
even decreases (members 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The decrease in mean cloud top
height for the latter is mainly due to an increase in the fraction of clouds
with low cloud tops. The fraction of clouds with high cloud tops shows only
very small changes between the simulations with standard- and high-aerosol
profiles. The small change in cloud top height is likely related to the
presence of a mid-tropospheric stable layer, which is present in all ensemble
members and limits cloud depths (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>). Most larger
convective cells have reached this “maximum” cloud top height for the
standard-aerosol scenario and hence no further deepening occurs in the high-aerosol scenario.
The change in cloud top height is only significant for an
increase in aerosol concentrations from the low to the standard scenario,
while it is not significant for a further increase in aerosol concentrations
(Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Condensed water budget and precipitation formation</title>
      <p id="d1e1798">The condensation ratio displays only very small changes between different
aerosol scenarios (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a). Accordingly, the condensate gain
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> changes only by 0–4 % between the low- and the standard-aerosol
scenario and by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2.5 % between the standard- and high-aerosol
scenario (Fig. S14a and b). As discussed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.46"/>, the
asymmetry in the response to increased and decreased aerosol<?pagebreak page10603?> concentrations
is likely related to the thermodynamic limitations on cloud deepening.
Changes in domain-wide condensation and deposition contribute to change in
condensate gain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S14c and d). Condensation contributes most
to the increases between the low- and the standard-aerosol scenario, while
changes in condensation and deposition contribute about equally to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the standard- and high-aerosol scenario. Aerosol-induced
modifications of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are only significant for a decrease
in aerosol concentrations relative to the standard scenario (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1857"><bold>(a)</bold> Condensation ratio and precipitation efficiency for the
different ensemble members and aerosol scenarios. The last column in each
panel provides the distribution of mean values from each ensemble member: the
dot represents the mean over all ensemble members and the bars represent the
range between the largest and smallest mean value. <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
in relation to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for ensemble members paired according to the
meteorological initial conditions. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are computed
for simulations with the high (green symbols) and low (cyan symbols) aerosol
profile relative to the simulations with the standard-aerosol profile. The
filled symbols represent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values computed over
the regional model domain, while the unfilled symbols include advective
fluxes of condensate at the domain boundary in the loss term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The blue (cyan) shaded area indicates the region in the phase space for which
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dominate the precipitation response using the minimum
(maximum) precipitation efficiency from the ensemble with standard-aerosol
conditions. The unfilled square shows the average response across the
ensemble members.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1952">The precipitation efficiency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is more
sensitive to aerosol changes than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and decreases continuously
with aerosol concentrations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a). The change in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is larger for increasing than decreasing aerosol concentration
relative to the standard-aerosol scenario. The stronger decrease in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the standard- to the high-aerosol scenario compared with
the<?pagebreak page10604?> low- and standard-aerosol scenario is consistent with a higher lateral
condensate transport to the stratiform region when cloud deepening becomes
limited by thermodynamic constraints, as hypothesised by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.47"/>. With further cloud deepening limited by the
upper-level stable layer, more condensate is transported into the stratiform
area reducing the residence time of the condensate in the active convective
core region. In contrast, cloud deepening is larger and changes in lateral
condensate transport smaller when the low- and standard-aerosol scenario are
compared. Therefore, the slower conversion of condensate to
precipitation-sized hydrometeors in the standard-aerosol scenario can be
partly balanced by a longer residence time in the convective core region.
This hypothesis is discussed in more detail in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.48"/>.
Consistent with the larger amplitude and consistent sign, the changes in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are significant for both a decrease and an increase in aerosol
concentrations relative to the standard scenario (Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e1999">The changes in
the condensate budget result in a modification of the accumulated surface
precipitation as illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b. The diagram displays
changes in condensate gain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and condensate loss <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
is discussed in detail in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.49"/>. Increasing the aerosol
concentrations from the low to the standard scenario results in a
precipitation decrease in most ensemble members (points below the one-to-one
line). Exceptions are the control simulation with a small increase in
precipitation and ensemble members 6 and 8 with no change in accumulated
surface precipitation (points on the one-to-one line). These ensemble members
have a relatively small decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as a relatively
large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to ensemble members with a similar
change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g. compare ensemble member 1 and 8). Accordingly,
the precipitation response in these cases is either dominated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(control) or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are of equal importance
(member 6 and 8), as also indicated by their position in the shaded area in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b. For the other members, the change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
dominates over changes in condensate production, as indicated by their
position outside the shaded area in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b. If the aerosol
concentration is enhanced beyond the standard scenario, the precipitation
decreases in all ensemble members (points above the one-to-one line). This
response is dominated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> changes in all ensemble members
(points outside the shaded area). Differences in accumulated precipitation
are significant, if ensemble members are paired according to meteorology
(Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2111">Domain-average precipitation rate <bold>(a)</bold> and mean condensed
water path <bold>(b)</bold>. The horizontal line inside the boxes indicates the
time mean value; the upper and lower edges the 25th and 75th percentile,
respectively; and the whiskers the 1st and 99th percentile. These statistics
reflect the temporal variability of the considered variables. The last column
in each panel provides the distribution of the ensemble means, with the dot
representing the average of the ensemble means and the bars the spread of the
ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2126">The decrease in
accumulated precipitation is accompanied by a reduced mean precipitation rate
with increasing aerosol concentrations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a). For most
ensemble members the change is larger between the standard- and high-aerosol
scenario than between the standard- and low-aerosol scenario. Only in ensemble
member 3 does the mean precipitation rate not decrease further in the
high-aerosol scenario and in<?pagebreak page10605?> ensemble members 4 and 5 the decrease between the
standard- and the high-aerosol scenario is comparable to the decrease between
the low and standard scenario. The percentiles of the precipitation
distribution increase for all percentiles up to and including the 75th
percentile from the low to the high aerosol concentration for almost all
ensemble members (Fig. S11c). The 99th percentiles are generally smallest
(largest) for the high (standard) aerosol scenario. The only exception is
ensemble member 4, for which the standard-aerosol scenario has the smallest
99th percentile.</p>
      <p id="d1e2131">The
condensed water path in the domain is a result of the condensate generation
and the timescale of condensate conversion to precipitation. Parcel model
considerations suggest a longer timescale for precipitation formation under
enhanced aerosol concentrations. Therefore, an increase in the condensed
water path is expected with increasing aerosol concentrations. Indeed, the
mean condensed water path in most ensemble members increases with aerosol
concentrations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>b). This is the result of small
decreases in the liquid water path (cloud and rain species) and a larger gain
in the mass of the frozen hydrometeors (ice, snow, and graupel species)
(Fig. S13), consistent with a slower conversion of cloud droplets to rain
drops and accordingly a larger mass transport across the 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C level.
The only ensemble member displaying a different pattern is ensemble member 9,
for which the total condensed, the solid, and the liquid water path decrease
from the standard- to the high-aerosol scenario. This ensemble member has
also the largest reduction in precipitation efficiency. In addition, for
ensemble member 9 the mean cloud top height and the fraction of clouds with
cloud tops larger than 4.3 km decrease compared to the standard-aerosol
scenario. These changes are consistent with a lower condensed water path, as
reduced cloud top heights indicate a smaller vertical displacement of the air
parcels and accordingly less condensate generation. The decrease in
precipitation efficiency is likely linked to these changes as the longer
timescale for conversion of cloud droplets to
precipitation-sized hydrometeors is not compensated for by a
longer residence time in the cloud due the reducing vertical extent of the
clouds. Aerosol-induced changes in condensed, liquid and frozen water path
are significant in the paired meteorology tests (Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <title>Radiation</title>
      <p id="d1e2151">The response of cloud radiative properties to changes in aerosol
concentrations is climatologically important, but not well constrained, mainly
due to the impact of aerosols on both cloud fraction and cloud lifetime. The
reflected shortwave radiation is affected by the size and number of the
hydrometeors close to cloud top and by the cloud fraction. The outgoing
shortwave flux increases for higher aerosol concentrations in all ensemble
members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>a). This change is consistent with the
aerosol-induced change in CDNC (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>) and the cloud albedo
effect <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.50"/>. The co-occurring decrease in cloud fraction
under high-aerosol conditions (between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> and 9 % for a factor of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> aerosol change) counteracts the CDNC effect, but the cloud
albedo effect dominates due to the large amplitude of the CDNC change (about
a factor of 7 for a factor of 10 aerosol change). Note that the radiative signal
presented here does not fully take into account potential changes in
radiative properties of the ice-phase species, as the effective diameter of
the latter is diagnosed from the ice water content.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2177">Outgoing shortwave <bold>(a)</bold> and longwave <bold>(b)</bold> radiative
flux at the top of the atmosphere, i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. The horizontal
line inside the boxes indicates the time mean value; the upper and lower
edges the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively; and the whiskers the 1st
and 99th percentile. These statistics reflect the temporal variability of the
considered variables. The last column in each panel provides the
distribution of the ensemble means, with the dot representing the average of
the ensemble means and the bars the spread of the ensemble means.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2203">The outgoing longwave
radiation is mainly influenced by the surface temperature, the cloud
fraction, and the cloud top<?pagebreak page10606?> temperature. The mean outgoing longwave radiation
shows only a small sensitivity to the aerosol scenario for all meteorological
ensemble members (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>b). The small discernible trend of
decreasing mean outgoing longwave radiation with increasing aerosol
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, standard- to high-aerosol scenario) is consistent with
the small increase in mean cloud top height (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a).</p>
      <p id="d1e2233">Aerosol-induced modifications to the outgoing
radiative fluxes are significant at the 5 % level.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Contribution of aerosol and meteorology perturbations to overall cloud
property variability</title>
      <p id="d1e2243">In the previous two sections, the response of cloud properties to
perturbations of the aerosol or meteorological initial and boundary
conditions has been discussed separately. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> meteorological
ensemble members vary in the large-scale moisture convergence, thermodynamic
profile, and wind shear. The variation in the large-scale moisture
convergence is most important for the cloud field properties, e.g. cloud
fraction, cell number, condensate generation, and accumulated precipitation
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>). The mean cloud top height varies between ensemble
members according to the different thermodynamic profiles. Aerosol-induced
changes follow a similar pattern for each meteorological ensemble member
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>). An increase in aerosol number concentration
translates to a larger CDNC, mean cell area, and outgoing shortwave
radiation, while the cell number and precipitation efficiency decrease with
increasing aerosol concentrations. The mean cloud top height, condensate
generation, and outgoing longwave radiation display only very small changes
in response to altered aerosol concentrations. <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
To detect
aerosol-induced changes in cloud properties or precipitation formation with
observational datasets, it is important to separate changes resulting from
different meteorological conditions from changes resulting from different
aerosol concentrations. This is necessitated by the co-variability of aerosol
and meteorological conditions in the real atmosphere. The question of the
relative importance of meteorological and aerosol initial and boundary
conditions for the cloud field structure and precipitation formation is also
important for operational numerical weather prediction and the future design
of ensemble prediction systems. Here, we use the combined meteorological and
aerosol initial condition ensemble, i.e. combining the discussion of the two
previous sections, to address the question of the relative importance of
aerosol and meteorological variability for the COPE case. The discussion will
focus on changes in the 10 h mean properties of the cloud field between
09:00 and 19:00 UTC. The mean value of the considered variable is displayed
along with its spread from the meteorological ensemble members on the right
side of Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>–<xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> for each aerosol scenario
(different colours). If instantaneous realisations of the different
(domain-averaged) variables were to be considered (box plots on left side of
the figures), the variability would be much larger than suggested by the
domain-mean time-averaged plots (right side of the plots). For a quantitative
assessment we use the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values from two-sided <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> tests for the full
ensemble, i.e. not pairing ensemble members according to the meteorological
initial conditions as in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2280">The cloud droplet number
concentration at either cloud base or cloud top is strongly influenced by the
assumed aerosol scenario but varies little between the different
meteorological members (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>, S9a). As a result, a clear
aerosol signal remains present even when the meteorological<?pagebreak page10607?> variability is
taken into account. The aerosol-induced CDNC change remains highly
significant at the 5 % level in the unpaired tests (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><caption><p id="d1e2287">Summary of variability in time-average (09:00–19:00 UTC) cloud
properties induced by variations in meteorological initial conditions (bars)
and aerosol initial conditions (colours; cyan: low-aerosol scenario, blue:
standard-aerosol scenario, green: high-aerosol scenario). Each variable has
been normalised such that the minimum and maximum values in the entire
ensemble (aerosol and meteorology) map to the value range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The variables displayed are cloud-base cloud droplet number
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CDNC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cb</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, number of cells <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cell</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean cell area
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cell</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, cloud fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cf</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean cloud top height
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cth</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, condensation ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, precipitation efficiency
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, average precipitation rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mean</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean condensed
water path <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WP</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, liquid water path <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LWP</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean outgoing
shortwave radiation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OSR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and mean outgoing longwave radiation
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OLR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/10593/2018/acp-18-10593-2018-f12.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2415">Although there is a stronger meteorology-induced variability in the cell
number and mean cell size (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>) and the predicted range
of values overlap for different aerosol scenarios, the aerosol signal is
clearly detectable in these variables and aerosol effects remain significant
also in the unpaired test (Table 1). However, if the cloud fraction, the mean
cloud top height, or the distribution in different cloud top height classes is
considered, the meteorological variability dominates
(Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>). Hence, changes in cloud
fraction, mean cloud top height, and deep cloud fraction are not significant
at the 5 % level, if ensemble members are not paired according to
meteorological conditions (Table 1). Considering previous arguments on
convective invigoration, it is interesting to note that the cloud top height
varies only very little with aerosol scenario but is sensitive to relatively
small changes in meteorological conditions. Consistent with the small changes
in cloud top height, no significant differences in outgoing longwave
radiation exist between the aerosol scenarios (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>b, Table 1).
For the outgoing shortwave radiation a stronger aerosol signal is retained
above the meteorological variability due to the large impact of aerosol
concentrations on CDNC (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>a). However, this signal is not
statistically significant for an aerosol increase beyond the standard-aerosol
scenario (Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e2429">Precipitation formation is known to be strongly influenced by
dynamical and microphysical processes. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.51"/> used an
analysis of the water budget to separate the contributions from cloud
dynamics and microphysics to aerosol-induced changes. As expected,
condensation ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and condensate gain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> vary strongly
between different meteorological ensemble members, but show little
sensitivity to the aerosol scenario (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a, S14a and b). The
small dependency of the condensate gain on the aerosol number concentration
may be a result of using a saturation adjustment scheme for the condensation
in our model. Previous studies using a prognostic supersaturation found the
condensation rates to be dependent on the CDNC number concentration
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx29 bib1.bibx51" id="paren.52"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. However, due to the
thermodynamic constraints on integrated condensation, we do not expect this
will have a strong impact on the overall behaviour of the condensate gain. In
contrast to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CR</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the precipitation efficiency
displays a relatively small systematic dependency on the large-scale moisture
convergence and a large dependency on the aerosol scenario
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a). However, the condensate loss <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> varies strongly
across meteorological ensemble members due to its close relation with the
condensation gain (Fig. S15). This co-variability is discounted for in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, still only the aerosol-induced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PE</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> change
between the standard- and high-aerosol scenario is significant at the 5 %
level for unpaired ensemble members.</p>
      <p id="d1e2487">The
aerosol-induced change in accumulated precipitation is the combined result of
the changes in condensation ratio and precipitation efficiency. While the
accumulated surface precipitation in most meteorological ensemble members
decreases with increasing aerosol scenario, these differences are much
smaller than the variability of accumulated surface precipitation between
meteorological ensemble members (Fig. S11b). The meteorological variability
is due to large differences in the condensate gain, which is directly related
to the variability in large-scale moisture convergence. The aerosol signal is
much larger for an increase in the aerosol concentrations beyond the
standard-aerosol scenario due to a significantly larger change in the precipitation
efficiency. The mean precipitation rate behaves qualitatively very similarly
to the accumulated precipitation (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a). Consistently,
neither changes in mean precipitation rate nor accumulated precipitation are
statistically significant (Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e2492">The ensemble-mean condensed water path increases with
increasing aerosol concentrations, if all hydrometeor types are considered
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>b). However, the liquid water path (condensate in the
cloud and rain category) shows relatively little sensitivity in its median
value, while the mean liquid water path generally decreases with increasing
aerosol concentrations (Fig. S13a). The frozen water path increases with
increasing aerosol concentrations for most ensemble<?pagebreak page10608?> members (Fig. S13b),
which is
consistent with a longer timescale for precipitation formation.
The aerosol-induced changes in both variables are much smaller than the
variability induced by different meteorological initial and boundary
conditions and are hence not significant at the 5 % level (Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Discussion and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2503">High-resolution ensemble simulations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) with perturbed
aerosol and meteorological initial and boundary conditions were performed for
convection forming along sea-breeze convergence zones over the southwestern
peninsula of the UK. The relative importance of perturbations in
meteorological (10 members) and aerosol initial conditions (three for each
member) for various cloud properties and precipitation formation is analysed
over a forecast lead time of 10–20 h. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> different
meteorological ensemble members develop similar mesoscale flow patterns with
a sea-breeze convergence zone establishing over the centre of the peninsula.
As a result of the different lateral boundary conditions, the large-scale
boundary-layer moisture convergence and the accumulated condensate gain vary
by a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> and the accumulated surface precipitation by a
factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> between ensemble members. The average cloud fraction
differs by up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> between the meteorological ensemble members.
This meteorological variability is compared to changes in cloud properties
induced by a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> increase and decrease in aerosol number
concentrations relative to the standard scenario. While the perturbations to
the meteorological initial conditions reflect at best the uncertainty for the
investigated case, changes in aerosol number concentration by a factor of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> are probably even larger than what could be expected for the
climatological variability.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2568">Number of observation days to obtain a statistically significant (at
the 5 % level) aerosol signal in 95 % of all cases. The main value
assumes the spread of the meteorological ensemble members equals <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
while the values in brackets use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol within a factor of 100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Aerosol within a factor of 10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Aerosol within a factor of 10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(low to high scenario)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(low to standard scenario)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(standard to high scenario)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CDNC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">480</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">140</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">130</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">340</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">320</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">860</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud top height</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">110</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">540</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">190</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">350</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">950</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Outgoing SW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Outgoing LW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">460</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1110</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3350</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">290</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">810</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">710</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1960</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2180</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6000</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Accumulated precipitation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">420</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">290</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">790</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3207">Changes in aerosol concentrations can potentially
modify cloud field properties, e.g. cell number and size, cloud depth, cloud
fraction, and the domain-wide condensate budget (condensate gain and loss,
precipitation rate). Aerosol-induced changes are consistent across the
ensemble, suggesting that the physical mechanism discussed by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.53"/> is robust against small changes in meteorological
initial conditions. The variability of cloud field properties across the
ensemble is summarised in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>. The possibility of
discerning aerosol-induced differences in various cloud metrics relative to
realistic meteorological variability is assessed in the following. First, the
idealised situation where the meteorological initial conditions are identical
for different aerosol perturbations is assessed by pairing ensemble members
according to the meteorological initial conditions. This is equivalent to
testing the statistical significance of the differences between realisations
with different aerosol scenarios and identical meteorological initial and
boundary conditions. For the paired ensemble members, a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>
increase or decrease in aerosol concentrations introduces statistically
significant changes (at the 5 % level) in CDNC, cloud fraction, cell
number and size, outgoing shortwave radiation, instantaneous and mean
precipitation rates, and precipitation efficiency
(Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>). Note that the statistical analysis is based on a
very small sample, which affects the validity of several assumptions.
However, since the statistical results agree qualitatively with the physical
analysis, we use the significance values as a helpful diagnostic for
summarising the results. Aerosol-induced changes in accumulated precipitation
are only significant for an increase in aerosol concentrations beyond the
standard scenario. An analysis of the condensed water budget suggests that
for a decrease in aerosol concentrations, a smaller condensation ratio is
balanced by an increasing precipitation efficiency. In contrast, for higher
aerosol concentrations than in the standard scenario, the precipitation
response is dominated by a strong decrease in precipitation efficiency with
little change in the condensation ratio due to the thermodynamic constraints
on cloud top height.</p>
      <p id="d1e3224">Secondly, we can use the simulations to assess our
ability to discern aerosol–cloud effects for the situation where
meteorological initial and boundary conditions are similar but subject to
observational uncertainty. This would represent a “perfect” observational
campaign where the meteorological conditions each day are only slightly
different (convergence within a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>) and large perturbations
to aerosol concentrations occur (factor of 10–100). This scenario is replicated
by analysing aerosol-induced changes in the full ensemble without pairing
ensemble members according to meteorological initial conditions. For the
unpaired ensemble, only aerosol-induced changes in CDNC, cell number and
size, outgoing shortwave radiation, and precipitation efficiency are
statistically significant (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>). For some of these
variables, the changes are significant only for a decrease or an increase in
aerosol number concentration relative to the standard scenario. For all other
investigated variables (cloud fraction, cloud top height, condensation ratio,
domain-average precipitation rate, condensed water path, and liquid water
path) the variability resulting from different meteorological initial and
boundary conditions is equal to or larger than the aerosol-induced changes.</p>
      <p id="d1e3237">The ensemble data can be used for a rough estimate
of the number of observations that are required for retrieving a robust
aerosol signal from observational data for sea-breeze convection. For this
analysis we assume (i) the aerosol scenario and meteorology are independent,
(ii) the ensemble is representative of the meteorological variability,
(iii) the meteorological variability can be described by a Gaussian
distribution, and (iv) observational data are perfect. While it is difficult
to a priori estimate the impact of these assumptions on the analysis, we
expect the analysis to provide a lower limit of the required number of
observations due to the following reasons: in contrast to assumption (i),
aerosol and meteorological conditions are likely to be correlated
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10 bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx62" id="paren.54"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, reducing the observed
section of the phase space. Secondly, the meteorological variability in the
ensemble simulations is not<?pagebreak page10609?> representative of the climatological variability
of meteorological conditions for sea-breeze convection over the
southwestern peninsula of the UK, which can be assumed to be much larger
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.55"/>. Lastly, observational data will not be perfect due
to measurement errors and spatial and temporal sampling issues
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.56"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. All these issues will likely increase the
number of required samples compared to the values suggested by our analysis.</p>
      <?pagebreak page10610?><p id="d1e3253">With the assumptions listed above, a Gaussian distributions representing the
meteorological variability is defined for the low- and the high-aerosol
scenario. For each variable, the mean value across all ensemble members with
the same aerosol scenario is used as the mean of the Gaussian distribution.
The standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the Gaussian distribution is defined by
assuming the value range (minimum and maximum) across the ensemble members
equals <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are tested as well). Then
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> realisations with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> samples are drawn from the Gaussian
distributions for the low- and high-aerosol scenario separately. The number
of samples <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be interpreted as the number of times the same day is
observed, as the statistical analysis presented here uses either daily
average or accumulated variables. However, it may be possible to interpret
the necessary number of observations also as number of individual
observations, e.g. from satellite overpasses, if subsequent observations are
not autocorrelated, i.e. are from different cloud lifecycles. If snapshots
are used, it may be necessary to take into account the possibly different
life cycle stages of the observed cloud field
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34 bib1.bibx61" id="paren.57"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. However, given the limited number of
ensemble members in our analysis, an assessment of this effect is beyond the
scope of our study. For each of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> realisations, we test the
hypothesis that the low- and high-aerosol scenarios are not equal with a
two-sided <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test. The resulting distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values gives the
probability that a significant aerosol-signal can be retrieved from a sample
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> observations with low- and high-aerosol conditions each (Fig. S16).
The number of days required to have a 95 % chance of observing a
significant aerosol-induced change in various cloud properties is listed in
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>. This required number of observations only gives an
approximate indication, as the exact number is sensitive to the assumptions
made regarding the presentation of the meteorological variability in the
ensemble, e.g. whether the ensemble spread corresponds to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. It is important to note that the statistical
analysis has the strong caveat of being based on a rather small ensemble. To
obtain robust statistics a much larger ensemble with several hundreds of
ensemble members would be required, which is currently beyond the
computational resources available. However, we think the analysis provided
here gives some general indication of the scale of observations required as
the statistics confirm the impressions gained from the physical analysis of
the ensemble members. Our analysis indicates that a small sample
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is sufficient for variables such as the CDNC and outgoing
shortwave radiation, while a large sample often exceeding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> is
required for variables such as cloud fraction, cloud top height, or
accumulated precipitation. The number of samples required depends on the
amplitude of the aerosol perturbation (factor of 100 between low- and high-aerosol scenario,
factor of 100 between the low- (high-) and the standard-aerosol scenario) as well as the location in the aerosol space (different for
increase or decrease relative to the standard-aerosol scenario). In general,
more observations are required for an increase in aerosol number
concentrations above the standard scenario, which is related to the
thermodynamic constraints on aerosol-induced changes in the considered case
discussed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.58"/>. The only exception is accumulated
surface precipitation, for which fewer observations are required for an
increase above the standard scenario. This reflects the larger
aerosol-induced signal in accumulated precipitation for increased compared to
decreased aerosol concentrations.</p>
      <p id="d1e3414">While the meteorological
ensemble allows us to put the aerosol-induced changes in cloud properties
into the context of changes related to meteorological variability, the
considered changes in meteorology are fairly small (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>).
Even if the represented meteorological variability is assumed to be
representative of all possible meteorological conditions on the investigated
day, they do not cover the full range of meteorological conditions that could
occur for convection along sea-breeze convergence zones. However, even this
very conservative estimate on the meteorological variability is for many
variables on the same order of magnitude or larger than the aerosol-induced
changes. We expect that the number of samples required to retrieve a
statistically robust aerosol-induced change would increase if the
climatological variability of the meteorological conditions is considered.</p>
      <p id="d1e3419">The results presented in this paper
certainly only pertain to the specific cloud type investigated and the
relative magnitude of aerosol- and meteorology-related changes in cloud
properties may be different for other cloud types. This will be investigated
in future studies. In addition to the results presented here, some previous
studies have highlighted the importance of considering the intrinsic
predictability of investigated cases before drawing conclusions about the
significance of aerosol-induced changes in cloud properties
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21 bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx39" id="paren.59"/>.
These studies used prescribed large-scale conditions and applied random
perturbations to thermodynamic fields throughout the simulations. The present
study complements their analysis by considering the impact of changes in the
large-scale conditions, which are small compared to observational
uncertainties and much smaller than the expected variability in
meteorological categories used to retrieve aerosol signals from general
circulation models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx64" id="paren.60"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Consistent with
previous studies, we find that the aerosol signals in variables closely
related to aerosol concentrations, such as cloud droplet number
concentrations, are easier to retrieve than for variables that are linked to
aerosol concentrations by a series of complex processes, such as accumulated
surface precipitation. From the limited number of studies available, the set
of variables in either category appears to vary for different cloud types and
geographic location. However, our and previous studies all suggest that
aerosol-induced change in surface precipitation is very difficult to retrieve
reliably <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx40" id="paren.61"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3435">The evidence presented in
the to-date very limited number of studies considering the relative impact of
meteorological and aerosol conditions on cloud properties suggests that it is
crucial to carefully consider intrinsic predictability, meteorological
conditions, and co-variability between aerosol and meteorological conditions
in modelling and observational studies of aerosol indirect effects. While
these aspects have been highlighted by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.62"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="text.63"/>, only a few modelling studies have investigated these
aspects and there is a clear need for future studies extending the analysis
to other cloud types and meteorological scenarios. An improved knowledge and
quantification of these aspects is mandatory for progress in our
understanding of aerosol-induced changes in cloud properties and for
retrieving observational evidence thereof.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e3448">Model data are stored on the tape archive provided by
JASMIN (<uri>http://www.jasmin.ac.uk/</uri>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="altparen.64"/>) service. Data access
to Met Office data via JASMIN is described at
<uri>http://www.ceda.ac.uk/blog/access-to-the-met-office-mass-archive-on-jasmin-goes-live/</uri>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.65"/>.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3463">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10593-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10593-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e3472">All authors contributed to the development of the concepts and ideas presented
in this paper. BJS developed the CASIM microphysics code. AAH, JMW, PRF, and
AKM contributed to the further development of the CASIM code. AKM and PRF set
up the model runs. AKM performed the model simulations and analysis and
wrote the majority of the manuscript, along with input and comments from all
co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e3478">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3484">We thank the COPE research team for collecting observational data, Alan Blyth
for very useful discussion input, and Jill Johnson for the insightful
discussions on the statistical analysis. We acknowledge use of the
Monsoon/NEXCS system, a collaborative facility supplied under the Joint
Weather and Climate Research Programme, a strategic partnership between the
Met Office and the Natural Environment Research Council. Furthermore, we
acknowledge JASMIN storage facilities (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2013.6691556" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/BigData.2013.6691556</ext-link>) as
well as FAAM, CEDA, BADC, and the Met Office for providing data. Funding for
this study has been provided by the University of Leeds and the UK Natural
Environment Research Council under grant NE/J023507/1. We thank two anonymous
reviewers for their valuable feedback.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Edited
by: Johannes Quaas <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Altaratz et al.(2014)Altaratz, Koren, Remer, and
Hirsch</label><mixed-citation>Altaratz, O., Koren, I., Remer, L. A., and Hirsch, E.: Review: Cloud
invigoration by aerosols – coupling between microphysics and dynamics, Atmos.
Res., 140–141, 38–60, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.01.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.01.009</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Aranami et al.(2014)Aranami, Zerroukat, and Wood</label><mixed-citation>Aranami, K., Zerroukat, M., and Wood, N.: Mixing properties of SLICE and
other
mass-conservative semi-Lagrangian schemes, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140,
2084–2089, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2268" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2268</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Aranami et al.(2015)Aranami, Davies, and Wood</label><mixed-citation>Aranami, K., Davies, T., and Wood, N.: A mass restoration scheme for
limited-area models with semi-Lagrangian advection, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 141, 1795–1803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2482" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2482</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Beck et al.(2016)Beck, Bouttier, Wiegand, Gebhardt, Eagle, and
Roberts</label><mixed-citation>Beck, J., Bouttier, F., Wiegand, L., Gebhardt, C., Eagle, C., and Roberts,
N.:
Development and verification of two convection-allowing multi-model ensembles
over Western Europe, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 2808–2826,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2870" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2870</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Berner et al.(2011)Berner, Ha, Hacker, Fournier, and
Snyder</label><mixed-citation>Berner, J., Ha, S.-Y., Hacker, J. P., Fournier, A., and Snyder, C.: Model
uncertainty in a mesoscale ensemble prediction system: stochastic versus
multiphysics representations, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1972–1995,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3595.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010MWR3595.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Blyth et al.(2015)Blyth, Bennett, and Collier</label><mixed-citation>Blyth, A. M., Bennett, L. J., and Collier, C. G.: High-resolution
observations
of precipitation from cumulonimbus clouds, Meteorol. Appl., 22, 75–89,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1492" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/met.1492</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Bony et al.(2004)Bony, Dufresne, Le Treut, Morcrette, and
Senior</label><mixed-citation>Bony, S., Dufresne, J. L., Le Treut, H., Morcrette, J. J., and Senior, C.: On
dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes, Clim. Dynam., 22,
71–86, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0369-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-003-0369-6</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Bowler et al.(2008)Bowler, Arribas, Mylne, Robertson, and
Beare</label><mixed-citation>Bowler, N. E., Arribas, A., Mylne, K. R., Robertson, K. B., and Beare, S. E.:
The MOGREPS short-range ensemble prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
134, 703–722, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.234" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.234</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Bowler et al.(2009)Bowler, Arribas, Beare, Mylne, and
Shutts</label><mixed-citation>Bowler, N. E., Arribas, A., Beare, S. E., Mylne, K. R., and Shutts, G. J.:
The
local ETKF and SKEB: upgrades to the MOGREPS short-range ensemble
prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135, 767–776,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.394" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.394</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Brenguier et~al.(2003)Brenguier, Pawlowska, and
Sch{\"{u}}ller}}?><label>Brenguier et al.(2003)Brenguier, Pawlowska, and
Schüller</label><mixed-citation>Brenguier, J.-L., Pawlowska, H., and Schüller, L.: Cloud microphysical
and
radiative properties for parameterization and satellite monitoring of the
indirect effect of aerosol on climate, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8632,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002682" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002682</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis(2018a)</label><mixed-citation>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis:
Jasmin system,  available at: <uri>http://www.jasmin.ac.uk/</uri>, last access: July 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis(2018b)</label><mixed-citation>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis: Access to MetOffice data on the
jasmin system, available at:
<uri>http://www.ceda.ac.uk/blog/access-to-the-met-office-mass-archive-on-jasmin-goes-live/</uri>,
last
access: July 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Devasthale et al.(2005)Devasthale, Kruger, and
Grassl</label><mixed-citation>Devasthale, A., Kruger, O., and Grassl, H.: Change in cloud-top temperatures
over Europe, IEEE Geosci. Remote S., 2, 333–336,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2005.851736" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/LGRS.2005.851736</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Estoque(1961)</label><mixed-citation>Estoque, M. A.: A theoretical investigation of the sea breeze, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 87, 136–146, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708737203" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49708737203</ext-link>, 1961.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Fan et al.(2016)Fan, Wang, Rosenfeld, and Liu</label><mixed-citation>Fan, J., Wang, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Liu, X.: Review of Aerosol–Cloud
Interactions: Mechanisms, Significance, and Challenges, J. Atmos. Sci., 73,
4221–4252, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0037.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-16-0037.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Feingold et al.(2016)Feingold, McComiskey, Yamaguchi, Johnson,
Carslaw, and Schmidt</label><mixed-citation>Feingold, G., McComiskey, A., Yamaguchi, T., Johnson, J. S., Carslaw, K. S.,
and Schmidt, K. S.: New approaches to quantifying aerosol influence on the
cloud radiative effect, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 5812–5819,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514035112" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1514035112</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Fridlind et al.(2010)Fridlind, Ackerman, Petch, Field, Hill,
G.McFarquhar, Xie, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>
Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Petch, J., Field, P. R., Hill, A.,
McFarquhar, G., Xie, S., and Zhang, M.: ARM/GCSS/SPARC TWP-ICE CRM
intercomparison study, NASA Tech. Memo., NASA TM-2010-215858, 24 pp., 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Golding(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Golding, B.: Boscastle and North Cornwall post flood event study –
meteorological analysis of the conditions leading to flooding on 16 August
2004, Forecasting Research Technical Report 459, Met Office, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Golding et al.(2005)Golding, Clark, and May</label><mixed-citation>Golding, B., Clark, P., and May, B.: The Boscastle flood: Meteorological
analysis of the conditions leading to flooding on 16 August 2004, Weather,
60, 230–235, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/wea.71.05" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/wea.71.05</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Grabowski(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Grabowski, W. W.: Indirect impact of atmospheric aerosols in idealised
simulations of convective-radiative equilibrium, J. Climate, 19, 4664–4682,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3857.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3857.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Grabowski et al.(1999)Grabowski, Wu, and Moncrieff</label><mixed-citation>Grabowski, W. W., Wu, X., and Moncrieff, M. W.: Cloud Resolving Modeling of
Tropical Cloud Systems during Phase III of GATE. Part III: Effects of Cloud
Microphysics, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 2384–2402,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;2384:CRMOTC&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;2384:CRMOTC&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Grosvenor et al.(2017)Grosvenor, Field, Hill, and
Shipway</label><mixed-citation>Grosvenor, D. P., Field, P. R., Hill, A. A., and Shipway, B. J.: The relative
importance of macrophysical and cloud albedo changes for aerosol-induced
radiative effects in closed-cell stratocumulus: insight from the modelling of
a case study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5155–5183,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5155-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-5155-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Gryspeerdt et al.(2014)Gryspeerdt, Stier, and
Partridge</label><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Stier, P., and Partridge, D. G.: Links between
satellite-retrieved aerosol and precipitation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9677–9694, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9677-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9677-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Harrison et al.(2009)Harrison, Scovell, and Kitchen</label><mixed-citation>Harrison, D. L., Scovell, R. W., and Kitchen, M.: High-resolution
precipitation
estimates for hydrological uses, P. I. Civil
Eng.-Water, 162, 125–135,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2009.162.2.125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1680/wama.2009.162.2.125</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Hill et al.(2015)Hill, Shipway, and Boutle</label><mixed-citation>Hill, A. A., Shipway, B. J., and Boutle, I. A.: How sensitive are
aerosol-precipitation interactions to the warm rain representation?, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 7, 987–1004, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014ms000422" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014ms000422</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Khairoutdinov and Randall(2003)</label><mixed-citation>Khairoutdinov, M. F. and Randall, D. A.: Cloud Resolving Modeling of the ARM
Summer 1997 IOP: Model Formulation, Results, Uncertainties, and
Sensitivities, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 607–625,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0607:CRMOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0607:CRMOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Koren et al.(2010)Koren, Feingold, and Remer</label><mixed-citation>Koren, I., Feingold, G., and Remer, L. A.: The invigoration of deep
convective clouds over the Atlantic: aerosol effect, meteorology or retrieval
artifact?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 8855–8872,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8855-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-8855-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Lakshmanan et al.(2013)Lakshmanan, Hondl, Potvin, and
Preignitz</label><mixed-citation>Lakshmanan, V., Hondl, K., Potvin, C. K., and Preignitz, D.: An improved
method
for estimating radar echo-top height, Weather Forecast., 28, 481–488,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00084.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-12-00084.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page10612?><ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Lebo(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Lebo, Z. J.: The Sensitivity of a Numerically Simulated Idealized Squall Line
to the Vertical Distribution of Aerosols, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4581–4596,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0068.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-14-0068.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Lebo et al.(2012)Lebo, Morrison, and Seinfeld</label><mixed-citation>Lebo, Z. J., Morrison, H., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Are simulated aerosol-induced
effects on deep convective clouds strongly dependent on saturation
adjustment?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9941–9964,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9941-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-9941-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Lee(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Lee, S. S.: Effect of Aerosol on Circulations and Precipitation in Deep
Convective Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1957–1974,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0111.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-11-0111.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Leon et al.(2016)Leon, French, Lasher-Trapp, Blyth, Abel, Ballard,
Barrett, Bennett, Bower, Brooks, Brown, Charlton-Perez, Choularton, Clark,
Collier, Crosier, Cui, Dey, Dufton, Eagle, Flynn, Gallagher, Halliwell,
Hanley, Hawkness-Smith, Huang, Kelly, Kitchen, Korolev, Lean, Liu, Marsham,
Moser, Nicol, Norton, Plummer, Price, Ricketts, Roberts, Rosenberg, Simonin,
Taylor, Warren, Williams, and Young</label><mixed-citation>Leon, D. C., French, J. R., Lasher-Trapp, S., Blyth, A. M., Abel, S. J.,
Ballard, S., Barrett, A., Bennett, L. J., Bower, K., Brooks, B., Brown, P.,
Charlton-Perez, C., Choularton, T., Clark, P., Collier, C., Crosier, J., Cui,
Z., Dey, S., Dufton, D., Eagle, C., Flynn, M. J., Gallagher, M., Halliwell,
C., Hanley, K., Hawkness-Smith, L., Huang, Y., Kelly, G., Kitchen, M.,
Korolev, A., Lean, H., Liu, Z., Marsham, J., Moser, D., Nicol, J., Norton,
E. G., Plummer, D., Price, J., Ricketts, H., Roberts, N., Rosenberg, P. D.,
Simonin, D., Taylor, J. W., Warren, R., Williams, P. I., and Young, G.: The
Convective Precipitation Experiment (COPE): Investigating the origins of
heavy precipitation in the southwestern United Kingdom, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 97, 1003–1020, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00157.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00157.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Li and Srivastava(2001)</label><mixed-citation>Li, X. and Srivastava, R. C.: An Analytical Solution for Raindrop Evaporation
and Its Application to Radar Rainfall Measurements, J. Appl. Meteorol., 40,
1607–1616, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2001)040&lt;1607:AASFRE&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(2001)040&lt;1607:AASFRE&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Luo et al.(2009)Luo, Liu, Stephens, and Johnson</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Z., Liu, G. Y., Stephens, G. L., and Johnson, R. H.: Terminal versus
transient cumulus congestus: A CloudSat perspective,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05808,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036927" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL036927</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Marsigli et al.(2014)Marsigli, Montani, and
Paccagnella</label><mixed-citation>Marsigli, C., Montani, A., and Paccagnella, T.: Perturbation of initial and
boundary conditions for a limited-area ensemble: multi-model versus
single-model approach, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 197–208,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2128" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2128</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>MetOffice(2003)</label><mixed-citation>MetOffice: 1 km Resolution UK Composite Rainfall Data from the Met Office
Nimrod System. NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre, available at:
<uri>http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/27dd6ffba67f667a18c62de5c3456350</uri> (last
access: June 2017), 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Miller et al.(2003)Miller, Keim, Talbot, and Mao</label><mixed-citation>Miller, S. T. K., Keim, B. D., Talbot, R. W., and Mao, H.: Sea breeze:
Structure, forecasting, and impacts, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1011,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000124" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003RG000124</ext-link>,  2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Miltenberger et al.(2018)Miltenberger, Field, Hill, Rosenberg,
Shipway, Wilkinson, Scovell, and Blyth</label><mixed-citation>Miltenberger, A. K., Field, P. R., Hill, A. A., Rosenberg, P., Shipway, B.
J., Wilkinson, J. M., Scovell, R., and Blyth, A. M.: Aerosol–cloud
interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds – Part 1: Aerosol
perturbations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3119–3145,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3119-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-3119-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Morrison(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Morrison, H.: On the robustness of aerosol effects on an idealized supercell
storm simulated with a cloud system-resolving model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7689–7705, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7689-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-7689-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Morrison and Grabowski(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Morrison, H. and Grabowski, W. W.: Cloud-system resolving model simulations
of aerosol indirect effects on tropical deep convection and its thermodynamic
environment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10503–10523,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10503-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10503-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Naud et al.(2016)Naud, Posselt, and van den Heever</label><mixed-citation>Naud, C. M., Posselt, D. J., and van den Heever, S. C.: Aerosol optical depth
distribution in extratropical cyclones over the northern hemisphere oceans,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 10504–10511,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070953" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL070953</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Romine et al.(2014)Romine, Schwartz, Berner, Fossell, Snyder,
Anderson, and Weisman</label><mixed-citation>Romine, G. S., Schwartz, C. S., Berner, J., Fossell, K. R., Snyder, C.,
Anderson, J. L., and Weisman, M. L.: Representing Forecast Error in a
Convection-Permitting Ensemble System, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 4519–4541,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00100.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-14-00100.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G. B., O'Dowd, C. D.,
Kulmala, M., Fuzzi, S., Reissell, A., and Andreae, M. O.: Flood or drought:
How do aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160606" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1160606</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Rosenfeld et~al.(2014)Rosenfeld, Andreae, Asmi, Chin, de~Leeuw,
Donovan, Kahn, Kinne, Kivek\"{a}s, Kulmala, Lau, Schmidt, Suni, Wagner, Wild,
and Quaas}}?><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2014)Rosenfeld, Andreae, Asmi, Chin, de Leeuw,
Donovan, Kahn, Kinne, Kivekäs, Kulmala, Lau, Schmidt, Suni, Wagner, Wild,
and Quaas</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan,
D. P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekäs, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt,
K. S., Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52,
750–808, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013RG000441</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Saito et al.(2011)Saito, Hara, Kunii, Seko, and
Yamaguchi</label><mixed-citation>Saito, K., Hara, M., Kunii, M., Seko, H., and Yamaguchi, M.: Comparison of
initial perturbation methods for the mesoscale ensemble prediction system of
the Meteorological Research Institute for the WWRP Beijing 2008 Olympics
Research and Development Project (B08RDP), Tellus A, 63, 445–467,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00509.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00509.x</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Schutgens et al.(2017)Schutgens, Tsyro, Gryspeerdt, Goto, Weigum,
Schulz, and Stier</label><mixed-citation>Schutgens, N., Tsyro, S., Gryspeerdt, E., Goto, D., Weigum, N., Schulz, M.,
and Stier, P.: On the spatio-temporal representativeness of observations,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9761–9780, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Schwartz et al.(2014)Schwartz, Romine, Smith, and
Weisman</label><mixed-citation>Schwartz, C. S., Romine, G. S., Smith, K. R., and Weisman, M. L.:
Characterizing and Optimizing Precipitation Forecasts from a
Convection-Permitting Ensemble Initialized by a Mesoscale Ensemble Kalman
Filter, Weather Forecast., 29, 1295–1318, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-13-00145.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-13-00145.1</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Scovell and al Sakka(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Scovell, R. and al Sakka, H.: A point cloud method for retrieval of
high-resolution 3D gridded reflectivity from weather radar networks for air
traffic management, J. Atmos. Ocean Tech., 33, 461–479,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0051.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0051.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Seifert et~al.(2012)Seifert, K\"{o}hler, and Beheng}}?><label>Seifert et al.(2012)Seifert, Köhler, and Beheng</label><mixed-citation>Seifert, A., Köhler, C., and Beheng, K. D.: Aerosol-cloud-precipitation
effects over Germany as simulated by a convective-scale numerical weather
prediction model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 709–725,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-709-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Sena et al.(2016)Sena, McComiskey, and Feingold</label><mixed-citation>Sena, E. T., McComiskey, A., and Feingold, G.: A long-term study of
aerosol–cloud interactions and their radiative effect at the Southern Great
Plains using ground-based measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11301–11318,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11301-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-11301-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Sheffield et al.(2015)Sheffield, Saleeby, and van den
Heever</label><mixed-citation>Sheffield, A. M., Saleeby, S. M., and van den Heever, S. C.: Aerosol-induced
mechanisms for cumulus congestus growth, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
8941–8952, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023743" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023743</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Shipway and Hill(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Shipway, B. J. and Hill, A. A.: Diagnosis of systematic differences between
multiple parametrizations of warm rain microphysics using a kinematic
framework, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 2196–2211, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1913" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.1913</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Stevens and Feingold(2009)</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="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature08281</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Tao et al.(2012)Tao, Chen, Li, Wang, and Zhang</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="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000369" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011RG000369</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page10613?><ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Twomey(1977)</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://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.bibx56"><label>van den Heever et al.(2011)van den Heever, Stephens, and
Wood</label><mixed-citation>
van den Heever, S. C., Stephens, G. L., and Wood, N. B.: Aerosol indirect
effect on tropical convective characteristics under conditions of
radiative-convective equilibrium, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 699–718, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Walters et al.(2017)Walters, Boutle, Brooks, Melvin, Stratton,
Vosper, Wells, Williams, Wood, Allen, Bushell, Copsey, Earnshaw, Edwards,
Gross, Hardiman, Harris, Heming, Klingaman, Levine, Manners, Martin, Milton,
Mittermaier, Morcrette, Riddick, Roberts, Sanchez, Selwood, Stirling, Smith,
Suri, Tennant, Vidale, Wilkinson, Willett, Woolnough, and
Xavier</label><mixed-citation>Walters, D., Baran, A., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J.,
Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J.,
Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van
Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Dalvi, M.,
Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A.,
Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M.,
Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global
Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model
Dev. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-291" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-2017-291</ext-link>, in review, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Wang et~al.(2012)Wang, Auglign\'{e}, and Morrison}}?><label>Wang et al.(2012)Wang, Augligné, and Morrison</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Augligné, T., and Morrison, H.: Impact of microphysics scheme
complexity on the propagation of initial perturbations, Mon. Weather Rev., 140,
2287–2296, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00005.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-12-00005.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Ward(1963)</label><mixed-citation>Ward, J. H.: Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function, J. Am.
Stat. Assoc., 58, 236–244, 1963.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>Warren et al.(2014)Warren, Kirshbaum, Plant, and Lean</label><mixed-citation>Warren, R. A., Kirshbaum, D. J., Plant, R. S., and Lean, H. W.: A
“Boscastle-type” quasi-stationary convective system over the UK Southwest
Peninsula, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 240–257, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2124" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2124</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Witte et al.(2014)Witte, Chuang, and Feingold</label><mixed-citation>Witte, M. K., Chuang, P. Y., and Feingold, G.: On clocks and clouds, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 14, 6729–6738, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6729-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-6729-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Wood et~al.(2017)Wood, Stemmler, R{\'{e}}millard, and
Jefferson}}?><label>Wood et al.(2017)Wood, Stemmler, Rémillard, and
Jefferson</label><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Stemmler, J. D., Rémillard, J., and Jefferson, A.: Low-CCN
concentration air masses over the eastern North Atlantic: Seasonality,
meteorology, and drivers, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 1203–1223,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025557" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD025557</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><label>Zeng et al.(2008)Zeng, Tao, Lang, Hou, Zhang, and Simpson</label><mixed-citation>Zeng, X., Tao, W.-K., Lang, S., Hou, A. Y., Zhang, M., and Simpson, J.: On
the
sensitivity of atmospheric ensembles to cloud microphysics in long-term
cloud-resolving model simulations, J. Meteor. Soc. Jpn., 86A, 45–65,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.86A.45" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2151/jmsj.86A.45</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><label>Zhang et al.(2016)Zhang, Wang, Ghan, Ding, Wang, Zhang, Neubauer,
Lohmann, Ferrachat, Takemura, Gettelman, Morrison, Lee, Shindell, Partridge,
Stier, Kipling, and Fu</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, S., Wang, M., Ghan, S. J., Ding, A., Wang, H., Zhang, K., Neubauer,
D., Lohmann, U., Ferrachat, S., Takeamura, T., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H.,
Lee, Y., Shindell, D. T., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Kipling, Z., and Fu,
C.: On the characteristics of aerosol indirect effect based on dynamic
regimes in global climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2765–2783,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2765-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-2765-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Aerosol–cloud interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds – Part 2: Meteorological ensemble</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The relative contribution of variations in
meteorological and aerosol initial and boundary conditions to the variability
in modelled cloud properties is investigated with a high-resolution ensemble
(30 members). In the investigated case, moderately deep convection develops
along sea-breeze convergence zones over the southwestern peninsula of the UK.
A detailed analysis of the mechanism of aerosol–cloud interactions in this
case has been presented in the first part of this study
(Miltenberger et al., 2018).</p><p>The meteorological ensemble (10 members) varies by about a factor of 2 in
boundary-layer moisture convergence, surface precipitation, and cloud
fraction, while aerosol number concentrations are varied by a factor of
100 between the three considered aerosol scenarios. If ensemble members
are paired according to the meteorological initial and boundary conditions,
aerosol-induced changes are consistent across the ensemble. Aerosol-induced
changes in CDNC (cloud droplet number concentration), cloud fraction, cell number and size, outgoing shortwave
radiation (OSR), instantaneous and mean precipitation rates, and precipitation
efficiency (PE) are statistically significant at the 5 % level, but
changes in cloud top height or condensate gain are not. In contrast, if
ensemble members are not paired according to meteorological conditions,
aerosol-induced changes are statistically significant only for CDNC, cell
number and size, outgoing shortwave radiation, and precipitation efficiency.
The significance of aerosol-induced changes depends on the aerosol scenarios
compared, i.e. an increase or decrease relative to the standard scenario.</p><p>A simple statistical analysis of
the results suggests that a large number of realisations (typically  &gt; 100)
of meteorological conditions within the uncertainty of a single day are
required for retrieving robust aerosol signals in most cloud properties. Only
for CDNC and shortwave radiation small samples are sufficient.</p><p>While the results are strictly only valid for the investigated
case, the presented evidence combined with previous studies highlights the
necessity for careful consideration of intrinsic predictability,
meteorological conditions, and co-variability between aerosol and
meteorological conditions in observational or modelling studies on aerosol
indirect effects.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Altaratz et al.(2014)Altaratz, Koren, Remer, and
Hirsch</label><mixed-citation>
Altaratz, O., Koren, I., Remer, L. A., and Hirsch, E.: Review: Cloud
invigoration by aerosols – coupling between microphysics and dynamics, Atmos.
Res., 140–141, 38–60, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.01.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.01.009</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Aranami et al.(2014)Aranami, Zerroukat, and Wood</label><mixed-citation>
Aranami, K., Zerroukat, M., and Wood, N.: Mixing properties of SLICE and
other
mass-conservative semi-Lagrangian schemes, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140,
2084–2089, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2268" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2268</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Aranami et al.(2015)Aranami, Davies, and Wood</label><mixed-citation>
Aranami, K., Davies, T., and Wood, N.: A mass restoration scheme for
limited-area models with semi-Lagrangian advection, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 141, 1795–1803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2482" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2482</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Beck et al.(2016)Beck, Bouttier, Wiegand, Gebhardt, Eagle, and
Roberts</label><mixed-citation>
Beck, J., Bouttier, F., Wiegand, L., Gebhardt, C., Eagle, C., and Roberts,
N.:
Development and verification of two convection-allowing multi-model ensembles
over Western Europe, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 2808–2826,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2870" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2870</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Berner et al.(2011)Berner, Ha, Hacker, Fournier, and
Snyder</label><mixed-citation>
Berner, J., Ha, S.-Y., Hacker, J. P., Fournier, A., and Snyder, C.: Model
uncertainty in a mesoscale ensemble prediction system: stochastic versus
multiphysics representations, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1972–1995,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3595.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3595.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Blyth et al.(2015)Blyth, Bennett, and Collier</label><mixed-citation>
Blyth, A. M., Bennett, L. J., and Collier, C. G.: High-resolution
observations
of precipitation from cumulonimbus clouds, Meteorol. Appl., 22, 75–89,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1492" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1492</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Bony et al.(2004)Bony, Dufresne, Le Treut, Morcrette, and
Senior</label><mixed-citation>
Bony, S., Dufresne, J. L., Le Treut, H., Morcrette, J. J., and Senior, C.: On
dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes, Clim. Dynam., 22,
71–86, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0369-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0369-6</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Bowler et al.(2008)Bowler, Arribas, Mylne, Robertson, and
Beare</label><mixed-citation>
Bowler, N. E., Arribas, A., Mylne, K. R., Robertson, K. B., and Beare, S. E.:
The MOGREPS short-range ensemble prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
134, 703–722, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.234" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.234</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Bowler et al.(2009)Bowler, Arribas, Beare, Mylne, and
Shutts</label><mixed-citation>
Bowler, N. E., Arribas, A., Beare, S. E., Mylne, K. R., and Shutts, G. J.:
The
local ETKF and SKEB: upgrades to the MOGREPS short-range ensemble
prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135, 767–776,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.394" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.394</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Brenguier et al.(2003)Brenguier, Pawlowska, and
Schüller</label><mixed-citation>
Brenguier, J.-L., Pawlowska, H., and Schüller, L.: Cloud microphysical
and
radiative properties for parameterization and satellite monitoring of the
indirect effect of aerosol on climate, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8632,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002682" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002682</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis(2018a)</label><mixed-citation>
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis:
Jasmin system,  available at: <a href="http://www.jasmin.ac.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.jasmin.ac.uk/</a>, last access: July 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Centre for Environmental Data Analysis(2018b)</label><mixed-citation>
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis: Access to MetOffice data on the
jasmin system, available at:
<a href="http://www.ceda.ac.uk/blog/access-to-the-met-office-mass-archive-on-jasmin-goes-live/" target="_blank">http://www.ceda.ac.uk/blog/access-to-the-met-office-mass-archive-on-jasmin-goes-live/</a>,
last
access: July 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Devasthale et al.(2005)Devasthale, Kruger, and
Grassl</label><mixed-citation>
Devasthale, A., Kruger, O., and Grassl, H.: Change in cloud-top temperatures
over Europe, IEEE Geosci. Remote S., 2, 333–336,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2005.851736" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2005.851736</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Estoque(1961)</label><mixed-citation>
Estoque, M. A.: A theoretical investigation of the sea breeze, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 87, 136–146, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708737203" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708737203</a>, 1961.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Fan et al.(2016)Fan, Wang, Rosenfeld, and Liu</label><mixed-citation>
Fan, J., Wang, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Liu, X.: Review of Aerosol–Cloud
Interactions: Mechanisms, Significance, and Challenges, J. Atmos. Sci., 73,
4221–4252, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0037.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0037.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Feingold et al.(2016)Feingold, McComiskey, Yamaguchi, Johnson,
Carslaw, and Schmidt</label><mixed-citation>
Feingold, G., McComiskey, A., Yamaguchi, T., Johnson, J. S., Carslaw, K. S.,
and Schmidt, K. S.: New approaches to quantifying aerosol influence on the
cloud radiative effect, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 5812–5819,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514035112" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514035112</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Fridlind et al.(2010)Fridlind, Ackerman, Petch, Field, Hill,
G.McFarquhar, Xie, and Zhang</label><mixed-citation>
Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Petch, J., Field, P. R., Hill, A.,
McFarquhar, G., Xie, S., and Zhang, M.: ARM/GCSS/SPARC TWP-ICE CRM
intercomparison study, NASA Tech. Memo., NASA TM-2010-215858, 24 pp., 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Golding(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Golding, B.: Boscastle and North Cornwall post flood event study –
meteorological analysis of the conditions leading to flooding on 16 August
2004, Forecasting Research Technical Report 459, Met Office, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Golding et al.(2005)Golding, Clark, and May</label><mixed-citation>
Golding, B., Clark, P., and May, B.: The Boscastle flood: Meteorological
analysis of the conditions leading to flooding on 16 August 2004, Weather,
60, 230–235, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/wea.71.05" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/wea.71.05</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Grabowski(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Grabowski, W. W.: Indirect impact of atmospheric aerosols in idealised
simulations of convective-radiative equilibrium, J. Climate, 19, 4664–4682,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3857.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3857.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Grabowski et al.(1999)Grabowski, Wu, and Moncrieff</label><mixed-citation>
Grabowski, W. W., Wu, X., and Moncrieff, M. W.: Cloud Resolving Modeling of
Tropical Cloud Systems during Phase III of GATE. Part III: Effects of Cloud
Microphysics, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 2384–2402,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;2384:CRMOTC&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;2384:CRMOTC&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Grosvenor et al.(2017)Grosvenor, Field, Hill, and
Shipway</label><mixed-citation>
Grosvenor, D. P., Field, P. R., Hill, A. A., and Shipway, B. J.: The relative
importance of macrophysical and cloud albedo changes for aerosol-induced
radiative effects in closed-cell stratocumulus: insight from the modelling of
a case study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5155–5183,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5155-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5155-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Gryspeerdt et al.(2014)Gryspeerdt, Stier, and
Partridge</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Stier, P., and Partridge, D. G.: Links between
satellite-retrieved aerosol and precipitation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9677–9694, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9677-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9677-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Harrison et al.(2009)Harrison, Scovell, and Kitchen</label><mixed-citation>
Harrison, D. L., Scovell, R. W., and Kitchen, M.: High-resolution
precipitation
estimates for hydrological uses, P. I. Civil
Eng.-Water, 162, 125–135,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2009.162.2.125" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2009.162.2.125</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Hill et al.(2015)Hill, Shipway, and Boutle</label><mixed-citation>
Hill, A. A., Shipway, B. J., and Boutle, I. A.: How sensitive are
aerosol-precipitation interactions to the warm rain representation?, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 7, 987–1004, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014ms000422" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014ms000422</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Khairoutdinov and Randall(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Khairoutdinov, M. F. and Randall, D. A.: Cloud Resolving Modeling of the ARM
Summer 1997 IOP: Model Formulation, Results, Uncertainties, and
Sensitivities, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 607–625,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0607:CRMOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0607:CRMOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Koren et al.(2010)Koren, Feingold, and Remer</label><mixed-citation>
Koren, I., Feingold, G., and Remer, L. A.: The invigoration of deep
convective clouds over the Atlantic: aerosol effect, meteorology or retrieval
artifact?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 8855–8872,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8855-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8855-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Lakshmanan et al.(2013)Lakshmanan, Hondl, Potvin, and
Preignitz</label><mixed-citation>
Lakshmanan, V., Hondl, K., Potvin, C. K., and Preignitz, D.: An improved
method
for estimating radar echo-top height, Weather Forecast., 28, 481–488,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00084.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00084.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Lebo(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Lebo, Z. J.: The Sensitivity of a Numerically Simulated Idealized Squall Line
to the Vertical Distribution of Aerosols, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4581–4596,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0068.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0068.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Lebo et al.(2012)Lebo, Morrison, and Seinfeld</label><mixed-citation>
Lebo, Z. J., Morrison, H., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Are simulated aerosol-induced
effects on deep convective clouds strongly dependent on saturation
adjustment?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9941–9964,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9941-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9941-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Lee(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, S. S.: Effect of Aerosol on Circulations and Precipitation in Deep
Convective Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1957–1974,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0111.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0111.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Leon et al.(2016)Leon, French, Lasher-Trapp, Blyth, Abel, Ballard,
Barrett, Bennett, Bower, Brooks, Brown, Charlton-Perez, Choularton, Clark,
Collier, Crosier, Cui, Dey, Dufton, Eagle, Flynn, Gallagher, Halliwell,
Hanley, Hawkness-Smith, Huang, Kelly, Kitchen, Korolev, Lean, Liu, Marsham,
Moser, Nicol, Norton, Plummer, Price, Ricketts, Roberts, Rosenberg, Simonin,
Taylor, Warren, Williams, and Young</label><mixed-citation>
Leon, D. C., French, J. R., Lasher-Trapp, S., Blyth, A. M., Abel, S. J.,
Ballard, S., Barrett, A., Bennett, L. J., Bower, K., Brooks, B., Brown, P.,
Charlton-Perez, C., Choularton, T., Clark, P., Collier, C., Crosier, J., Cui,
Z., Dey, S., Dufton, D., Eagle, C., Flynn, M. J., Gallagher, M., Halliwell,
C., Hanley, K., Hawkness-Smith, L., Huang, Y., Kelly, G., Kitchen, M.,
Korolev, A., Lean, H., Liu, Z., Marsham, J., Moser, D., Nicol, J., Norton,
E. G., Plummer, D., Price, J., Ricketts, H., Roberts, N., Rosenberg, P. D.,
Simonin, D., Taylor, J. W., Warren, R., Williams, P. I., and Young, G.: The
Convective Precipitation Experiment (COPE): Investigating the origins of
heavy precipitation in the southwestern United Kingdom, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 97, 1003–1020, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00157.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00157.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Li and Srivastava(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Li, X. and Srivastava, R. C.: An Analytical Solution for Raindrop Evaporation
and Its Application to Radar Rainfall Measurements, J. Appl. Meteorol., 40,
1607–1616, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2001)040&lt;1607:AASFRE&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2001)040&lt;1607:AASFRE&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Luo et al.(2009)Luo, Liu, Stephens, and Johnson</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Z., Liu, G. Y., Stephens, G. L., and Johnson, R. H.: Terminal versus
transient cumulus congestus: A CloudSat perspective,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05808,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036927" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036927</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Marsigli et al.(2014)Marsigli, Montani, and
Paccagnella</label><mixed-citation>
Marsigli, C., Montani, A., and Paccagnella, T.: Perturbation of initial and
boundary conditions for a limited-area ensemble: multi-model versus
single-model approach, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 197–208,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2128" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2128</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>MetOffice(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
MetOffice: 1 km Resolution UK Composite Rainfall Data from the Met Office
Nimrod System. NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre, available at:
<a href="http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/27dd6ffba67f667a18c62de5c3456350" target="_blank">http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/27dd6ffba67f667a18c62de5c3456350</a> (last
access: June 2017), 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Miller et al.(2003)Miller, Keim, Talbot, and Mao</label><mixed-citation>
Miller, S. T. K., Keim, B. D., Talbot, R. W., and Mao, H.: Sea breeze:
Structure, forecasting, and impacts, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1011,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000124" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000124</a>,  2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Miltenberger et al.(2018)Miltenberger, Field, Hill, Rosenberg,
Shipway, Wilkinson, Scovell, and Blyth</label><mixed-citation>
Miltenberger, A. K., Field, P. R., Hill, A. A., Rosenberg, P., Shipway, B.
J., Wilkinson, J. M., Scovell, R., and Blyth, A. M.: Aerosol–cloud
interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds – Part 1: Aerosol
perturbations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3119–3145,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3119-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3119-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Morrison(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Morrison, H.: On the robustness of aerosol effects on an idealized supercell
storm simulated with a cloud system-resolving model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7689–7705, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7689-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7689-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Morrison and Grabowski(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Morrison, H. and Grabowski, W. W.: Cloud-system resolving model simulations
of aerosol indirect effects on tropical deep convection and its thermodynamic
environment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10503–10523,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10503-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10503-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Naud et al.(2016)Naud, Posselt, and van den Heever</label><mixed-citation>
Naud, C. M., Posselt, D. J., and van den Heever, S. C.: Aerosol optical depth
distribution in extratropical cyclones over the northern hemisphere oceans,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 10504–10511,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070953" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070953</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Romine et al.(2014)Romine, Schwartz, Berner, Fossell, Snyder,
Anderson, and Weisman</label><mixed-citation>
Romine, G. S., Schwartz, C. S., Berner, J., Fossell, K. R., Snyder, C.,
Anderson, J. L., and Weisman, M. L.: Representing Forecast Error in a
Convection-Permitting Ensemble System, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 4519–4541,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00100.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00100.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G. B., O'Dowd, C. D.,
Kulmala, M., Fuzzi, S., Reissell, A., and Andreae, M. O.: Flood or drought:
How do aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160606" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160606</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2014)Rosenfeld, Andreae, Asmi, Chin, de Leeuw,
Donovan, Kahn, Kinne, Kivekäs, Kulmala, Lau, Schmidt, Suni, Wagner, Wild,
and Quaas</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan,
D. P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekäs, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt,
K. S., Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52,
750–808, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Saito et al.(2011)Saito, Hara, Kunii, Seko, and
Yamaguchi</label><mixed-citation>
Saito, K., Hara, M., Kunii, M., Seko, H., and Yamaguchi, M.: Comparison of
initial perturbation methods for the mesoscale ensemble prediction system of
the Meteorological Research Institute for the WWRP Beijing 2008 Olympics
Research and Development Project (B08RDP), Tellus A, 63, 445–467,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00509.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00509.x</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Schutgens et al.(2017)Schutgens, Tsyro, Gryspeerdt, Goto, Weigum,
Schulz, and Stier</label><mixed-citation>
Schutgens, N., Tsyro, S., Gryspeerdt, E., Goto, D., Weigum, N., Schulz, M.,
and Stier, P.: On the spatio-temporal representativeness of observations,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9761–9780, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Schwartz et al.(2014)Schwartz, Romine, Smith, and
Weisman</label><mixed-citation>
Schwartz, C. S., Romine, G. S., Smith, K. R., and Weisman, M. L.:
Characterizing and Optimizing Precipitation Forecasts from a
Convection-Permitting Ensemble Initialized by a Mesoscale Ensemble Kalman
Filter, Weather Forecast., 29, 1295–1318, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-13-00145.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-13-00145.1</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Scovell and al Sakka(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Scovell, R. and al Sakka, H.: A point cloud method for retrieval of
high-resolution 3D gridded reflectivity from weather radar networks for air
traffic management, J. Atmos. Ocean Tech., 33, 461–479,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0051.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0051.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Seifert et al.(2012)Seifert, Köhler, and Beheng</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A., Köhler, C., and Beheng, K. D.: Aerosol-cloud-precipitation
effects over Germany as simulated by a convective-scale numerical weather
prediction model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 709–725,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Sena et al.(2016)Sena, McComiskey, and Feingold</label><mixed-citation>
Sena, E. T., McComiskey, A., and Feingold, G.: A long-term study of
aerosol–cloud interactions and their radiative effect at the Southern Great
Plains using ground-based measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11301–11318,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11301-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11301-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Sheffield et al.(2015)Sheffield, Saleeby, and van den
Heever</label><mixed-citation>
Sheffield, A. M., Saleeby, S. M., and van den Heever, S. C.: Aerosol-induced
mechanisms for cumulus congestus growth, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
8941–8952, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023743" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023743</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Shipway and Hill(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Shipway, B. J. and Hill, A. A.: Diagnosis of systematic differences between
multiple parametrizations of warm rain microphysics using a kinematic
framework, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 2196–2211, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1913" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1913</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Stevens and Feingold(2009)</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="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Tao et al.(2012)Tao, Chen, Li, Wang, and Zhang</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="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000369" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000369</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Twomey(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>van den Heever et al.(2011)van den Heever, Stephens, and
Wood</label><mixed-citation>
van den Heever, S. C., Stephens, G. L., and Wood, N. B.: Aerosol indirect
effect on tropical convective characteristics under conditions of
radiative-convective equilibrium, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 699–718, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Walters et al.(2017)Walters, Boutle, Brooks, Melvin, Stratton,
Vosper, Wells, Williams, Wood, Allen, Bushell, Copsey, Earnshaw, Edwards,
Gross, Hardiman, Harris, Heming, Klingaman, Levine, Manners, Martin, Milton,
Mittermaier, Morcrette, Riddick, Roberts, Sanchez, Selwood, Stirling, Smith,
Suri, Tennant, Vidale, Wilkinson, Willett, Woolnough, and
Xavier</label><mixed-citation>
Walters, D., Baran, A., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J.,
Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J.,
Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van
Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Dalvi, M.,
Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A.,
Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M.,
Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global
Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model
Dev. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-291" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-291</a>, in review, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Wang et al.(2012)Wang, Augligné, and Morrison</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H., Augligné, T., and Morrison, H.: Impact of microphysics scheme
complexity on the propagation of initial perturbations, Mon. Weather Rev., 140,
2287–2296, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00005.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00005.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Ward(1963)</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, J. H.: Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function, J. Am.
Stat. Assoc., 58, 236–244, 1963.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>Warren et al.(2014)Warren, Kirshbaum, Plant, and Lean</label><mixed-citation>
Warren, R. A., Kirshbaum, D. J., Plant, R. S., and Lean, H. W.: A
“Boscastle-type” quasi-stationary convective system over the UK Southwest
Peninsula, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 240–257, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2124" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2124</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>Witte et al.(2014)Witte, Chuang, and Feingold</label><mixed-citation>
Witte, M. K., Chuang, P. Y., and Feingold, G.: On clocks and clouds, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 14, 6729–6738, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6729-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6729-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>Wood et al.(2017)Wood, Stemmler, Rémillard, and
Jefferson</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R., Stemmler, J. D., Rémillard, J., and Jefferson, A.: Low-CCN
concentration air masses over the eastern North Atlantic: Seasonality,
meteorology, and drivers, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 1203–1223,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025557" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025557</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>Zeng et al.(2008)Zeng, Tao, Lang, Hou, Zhang, and Simpson</label><mixed-citation>
Zeng, X., Tao, W.-K., Lang, S., Hou, A. Y., Zhang, M., and Simpson, J.: On
the
sensitivity of atmospheric ensembles to cloud microphysics in long-term
cloud-resolving model simulations, J. Meteor. Soc. Jpn., 86A, 45–65,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.86A.45" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.86A.45</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>Zhang et al.(2016)Zhang, Wang, Ghan, Ding, Wang, Zhang, Neubauer,
Lohmann, Ferrachat, Takemura, Gettelman, Morrison, Lee, Shindell, Partridge,
Stier, Kipling, and Fu</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, S., Wang, M., Ghan, S. J., Ding, A., Wang, H., Zhang, K., Neubauer,
D., Lohmann, U., Ferrachat, S., Takeamura, T., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H.,
Lee, Y., Shindell, D. T., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Kipling, Z., and Fu,
C.: On the characteristics of aerosol indirect effect based on dynamic
regimes in global climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2765–2783,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2765-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2765-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
