Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on  precipitation formation: a case study based on  extensive remote-sensing, in situ and model data

Ohneiser, Kevin; Seifert, Patric; Schimmel, Willi; Senf, Fabian; Gaudek, Tom; Radenz, Martin; Teisseire, Audrey; Ettrichrätz, Veronika; Vogl, Teresa; Maherndl, Nina; Pfeifer, Nils; Henneberger, Jan; Miller, Anna J.; Omanovic, Nadja; Fuchs, Christopher; Zhang, Huiying; Ramelli, Fabiola; Spirig, Robert; Kötsche, Anton; Kalesse-Los, Heike; Maahn, Maximilian; Corden, Heather; Berne, Alexis; Hajipour, Majid; Griesche, Hannes; Hofer, Julian; Engelmann, Ronny; Skupin, Annett; Ansmann, Albert; Baars, Holger

doi:10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025

Articles | Volume 25, issue 23

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Fusion of radar polarimetry and numerical atmospheric modelling...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17363-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 25, issue 23

Research article

|

02 Dec 2025

Research article |

| 02 Dec 2025

Impact of seeder-feeder cloud interaction on precipitation formation: a case study based on extensive remote-sensing, in situ and model data

Kevin Ohneiser, Patric Seifert, Willi Schimmel, Fabian Senf, Tom Gaudek, Martin Radenz, Audrey Teisseire, Veronika Ettrichrätz, Teresa Vogl, Nina Maherndl, Nils Pfeifer, Jan Henneberger, Anna J. Miller, Nadja Omanovic, Christopher Fuchs, Huiying Zhang, Fabiola Ramelli, Robert Spirig, Anton Kötsche, Heike Kalesse-Los, Maximilian Maahn, Heather Corden, Alexis Berne, Majid Hajipour, Hannes Griesche, Julian Hofer, Ronny Engelmann, Annett Skupin, Albert Ansmann, and Holger Baars

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Dec 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jun 2025)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2025

Please see attached supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2482', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2482/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kevin Ohneiser, 05 Sep 2025
  
  Please see attached supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2482-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Kevin Ohneiser on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Sep 2025) by Ivy Tan

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 Sep 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Sep 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I appreciate the work that the authors have put into revising this manuscript, and generally find it improved. Having said that, the model evaluation section, in my opinion, is still not worth including. The way that this evaluation is completed tells us nothing about the model’s abilities or about the reasons that the model and observations don’t fully agree in this case. To do so, it would be necessary to look at a significantly larger number of cases, ensure that the observational output is put into a similar format to the model output, and/or dive way more deeply into the details of the simulations to see *where* and *why* the model is not able to accurately re-create this one case. I still strongly believe that the ½ page, as written, is not worthy of the space it takes up in the manuscript.

At the very least, the authors should take time to understand why ICON-D2 is behaving the way it does. Saying it’s a 1-moment scheme and then speculating that maybe INPs have something to do with it is not only insufficient, it is not supported by the analysis. Why is the response of model ice riming reversed from observations when comparing seeded vs. unseeded clouds? What about the model’s parameterizations or the conditions forcing those parameterizations resulted in this outcome? What were the model thermodynamic conditions like relative to observations? Are any attempts made to compare apples to apples? What sort of averaging is applied to the observational data to help account for the fact that the model output is meant to represent a significantly larger area? How much temporal and spatial variability exists? In other words, if you were to install 1000 disdrometers across the spatial area covered by the model domain and take an average value of precipitation rates from those 1000 disdrometers at 1-minute intervals, would the peaks still be as large as they are? Or would the peaks basically be “averaged out” across the 1000 sensors due to shifts in timing? If the latter, then maybe the model isn’t so bad? What can you say about the fact that the ICON-D2 results do fall in between the different observations? Is the point that the variance is greater in the obs (if so, say so?). As it stands, the model results appear to fall in between the different observations. Also, the last statement, which speculates about increased condensate driving stronger riming – is there anything you can say about the number and size of droplets and the impacts that those have on riming rates?

I’m not trying to say that what is written here is necessarily wrong or that it goes against what the plots show. And, I agree that “model evaluation can be a central part of the case study.” However, there is no real insight here, and this isn’t really “model evaluation” as much as it is a comparison between localized disdrometer measurements and a value from the model output. All this section currently says is “based on the (poorly-constructed) comparison between obs and model output, there seem to be differences in this one individual case. I just don’t see this as useful and would still strongly advocate for the removal of this particular section.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Sep 2025) by Ivy Tan

AR by Kevin Ohneiser on behalf of the Authors (17 Oct 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This study focuses on a seeder-feeder cloud system on 8 Jan 2024 in Eriswil, Switzerland. It is shown how the interaction of these cloud systems changes the cloud microphysical properties and the precipitation patterns. A big set of advanced remote-sensing techniques and retrieval algorithms are applied, so that a detailed view on the seeder-feeder cloud system is available. The gained knowledge can be used to improve weather models and weather forecasts.