Impact of upstream moisture structure on a back-building convective precipitation system in south-eastern France during HyMeX IOP13

Lee, Keun-Ok; Flamant, Cyrille; Duffourg, Fanny; Ducrocq, Véronique; Chaboureau, Jean-Pierre

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16845-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 23

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16845-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Hydrological cycle in the Mediterranean (ACP/AMT/GMD/HESS/NHESS/OS...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16845-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 23

Research article

|

29 Nov 2018

Research article |

| 29 Nov 2018

Impact of upstream moisture structure on a back-building convective precipitation system in south-eastern France during HyMeX IOP13

Keun-Ok Lee, Cyrille Flamant, Fanny Duffourg, Véronique Ducrocq, and Jean-Pierre Chaboureau

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Nov 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Jul 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer comments to manuscript acp-2018-707', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Aug 2018
- AC1: 'reply to referee's comments', Keunok LEE, 31 Oct 2018
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Sep 2018
- AC2: 'reply to referee's comments', Keunok LEE, 31 Oct 2018
RC3: 'Reivew of manuscript acp-2018-707 by Reviewer 3', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Sep 2018
- AC3: 'reply to referee's comments', Keunok LEE, 31 Oct 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Keunok Lee on behalf of the Authors (31 Oct 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Nov 2018) by Heini Wernli

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Nov 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for considering my comments and for making an effort to modify their manuscript accordingly. My major concern about the first draft was related to the unclear explanation of the impact of free-atmospheric moisture on cold-pool intensity. From the current draft, I understand that the weakening of the cold pool (leading to the observed reduction of precipitation in the FAxM experiments) was caused mainly by the reduced moisture supply upstream of the convective system in the 1-2 km layer, which led to lower rainfall rates. This seems a reasonable explanation, and it is well supported by the new Figure 16. Although the authors don’t mention it explicitly, it can be concluded that (in the FAxM experiments) the expected enhancement of rainfall evaporation in the drier 1-2 km layer was relatively unimportant.

I think it now makes sense to recommend the manuscript for publication. However, a few minor aspects should still be fixed before acceptance.

P4, L29: Reference to “Collela and Woodward, 1984”. I believe the family name of the first author should be changed to “Colella”.

P5, L23: “Bubble initiation”. The authors are describing the control run here, so there should be no sensitivity bubble. If “bubble” is used improperly as a synonym of “convective ascent” (or of similar expressions), please fix.

P14, L4-6: “While the dried air mass in the 1−2 km layer is advected toward upstream the convection, it mixes with the moist air below, reducing the total moisture below 2 km”. This sentence is somehow confusing. Mixing between the 0-1 km layer and the 1-2 km layer cannot reduce the total moisture below 2 km (mixing redistributes a quantity, but it can’t remove it from the system). Advection of relatively dry air, instead, does reduce moisture. I think the authors mean the following: Considering the region immediately upstream of convective ascents, the total moisture below 2 km in the FAxM simulations is lower than in CNTL (or decreases over time), due to the advection of the sensitivity bubble containing dry air at heights between 1 and 2 km. Please check if this interpretation is correct and, if so, clarify the text.

P39, L3: Caption of F16. This figure shows the temporal evolution of area-averaged rainfall rate and virtual potential temperature. The boundaries of the area are reported to be: 5.5−7.5°E, 43−44.5°N. Is the northern boundary actually 43.5 °N? 44.5 seems to be too far to the north.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (19 Nov 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Nov 2018) by Heini Wernli

AR by Keunok Lee on behalf of the Authors (19 Nov 2018) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Nov 2018) by Heini Wernli

AR by Keunok Lee on behalf of the Authors (20 Nov 2018)