Articles | Volume 21, issue 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11941-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11941-2021
Peer-reviewed comment
 | 
10 Aug 2021
Peer-reviewed comment |  | 10 Aug 2021

Comment on “Review of experimental studies of secondary ice production” by Korolev and Leisner (2020)

Vaughan T. J. Phillips, Jun-Ichi Yano, Akash Deshmukh, and Deepak Waman

Viewed

Total article views: 2,429 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,482 904 43 2,429 23 21
  • HTML: 1,482
  • PDF: 904
  • XML: 43
  • Total: 2,429
  • BibTeX: 23
  • EndNote: 21
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Feb 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Feb 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,429 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,460 with geography defined and -31 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 28 Mar 2024
Short summary
For decades, high concentrations of ice observed in precipitating mixed-phase clouds have created an enigma. Such concentrations are higher than can be explained by the action of aerosols or by the spontaneous freezing of most cloud droplets. The controversy has partly persisted due to the lack of laboratory experimentation in ice microphysics, especially regarding fragmentation of ice, a topic reviewed by a recent paper. Our comment attempts to clarify some issues with regards to that review.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint