Articles | Volume 26, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9879-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9879-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Opposing entrainment effects of cloud droplet sedimentation during the pre-breakup stage of the stratocumulus to cumulus transition
Moritz Schnelke
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
Hans Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Frankfurt, Germany
Maike Ahlgrimm
Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany
Hans Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Offenbach, Germany
Anna Possner
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
Hans Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Frankfurt, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosovic, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Lea Raillard, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Étienne Vignon, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Models struggle to capture cloud and precipitation processes and their radiative effects in marine cold-air outbreaks. We use a quasi-Lagrangian framework to compare large-eddy simulation (LES) and single-column model (SCM) output with field and satellite observations. With fixed droplet and ice numbers, LES and SCM agree in liquid-only tests. In mixed-phase conditions, LES plausibly capture cloud thinning and breakup, while SCMs largely remain overcast and thereby miss cloud radiative effects.
Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosović, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6217, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6217, 2026
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Models struggle to capture cloud and precipitation processes and their radiative effects in marine cold-air outbreaks. We use a quasi-Lagrangian framework to compare large-eddy simulation (LES) and single-column model (SCM) output with field and satellite observations. With fixed droplet and ice numbers, LES and SCM agree in liquid-only tests. In mixed-phase conditions, LES plausibly capture cloud thinning and breakup, while SCMs largely remain overcast and thereby miss cloud radiative effects.
Maike Ahlgrimm and Eileen Päschke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6327, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6327, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a new type of observation of wind and turbulence to investigate the accuracy with which the German weather forecasting model predicts these variables in the lowest 600 metres of the atmosphere. The model performs adequately during the day, but struggles with both wind and turbulence at night. This is important for wind energy planning and understanding how airborne particles are transported by the wind. The study suggests ways in which the model could be further improved.
Lianet Hernández Pardo, Joachim Curtius, Patrick Jöckel, Moritz Menken, and Anna Possner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4338, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4338, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Many tiny particles are formed high in the tropical atmosphere, but their impact lower down is unclear. We studied how these particles move downward using long-term computer simulations. We found that particles can reach middle levels of the atmosphere within a week, carried by winds. These results help us understand how pollution and clouds might change as particles spread around the world.
Florian Sauerland, Niels Souverijns, Anna Possner, Heike Wex, Preben Van Overmeiren, Alexander Mangold, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Nicole van Lipzig
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13751–13768, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We use a regional climate model, COSMO-CLM², enhanced with a module resolving aerosol processes, to study Antarctic clouds. We prescribe different concentrations of ice-nucleating particles to our model to assess how these clouds respond to concentration changes, validating results with cloud and aerosol observations from the Princess Elisabeth Antarctica station. Our results show that aerosol–cloud interactions vary with temperature, providing valuable insights into Antarctic cloud dynamics.
Casey J. Wall, Trude Storelvmo, and Anna Possner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13125–13141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13125-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13125-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Interactions between aerosol pollution and liquid clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in the effective radiative forcing of climate over the industrial era. We use global satellite observations to decompose the forcing into components from changes in cloud-droplet number concentration, cloud water content, and cloud amount. Our results reduce uncertainty in these forcing components and clarify their relative importance.
Jessica Danker, Odran Sourdeval, Isabel L. McCoy, Robert Wood, and Anna Possner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10247–10265, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10247-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10247-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Using spaceborne lidar-radar retrievals, we show that seasonal changes in cloud phase outweigh changes in cloud-phase statistics across cloud morphologies at given cloud-top temperatures. These results show that cloud morphology does not seem to pose a primary constraint on cloud-phase statistics in the Southern Ocean. Meanwhile, larger changes in in-cloud albedo across cloud morphologies are observed in supercooled liquid rather than mixed-phase stratocumuli.
Matthew W. Christensen, Andrew Gettelman, Jan Cermak, Guy Dagan, Michael Diamond, Alyson Douglas, Graham Feingold, Franziska Glassmeier, Tom Goren, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Edward Gryspeerdt, Ralph Kahn, Zhanqing Li, Po-Lun Ma, Florent Malavelle, Isabel L. McCoy, Daniel T. McCoy, Greg McFarquhar, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Sandip Pal, Anna Possner, Adam Povey, Johannes Quaas, Daniel Rosenfeld, Anja Schmidt, Roland Schrödner, Armin Sorooshian, Philip Stier, Velle Toll, Duncan Watson-Parris, Robert Wood, Mingxi Yang, and Tianle Yuan
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 641–674, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-641-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-641-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Trace gases and aerosols (tiny airborne particles) are released from a variety of point sources around the globe. Examples include volcanoes, industrial chimneys, forest fires, and ship stacks. These sources provide opportunistic experiments with which to quantify the role of aerosols in modifying cloud properties. We review the current state of understanding on the influence of aerosol on climate built from the wide range of natural and anthropogenic laboratories investigated in recent decades.
Cited articles
Ackerman, A. S., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Stevens, D. E., and Toon, O. B.: The Impact of Humidity above Stratiform Clouds on Indirect Aerosol Climate Forcing, Nature, 432, 1014–1017, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03174, 2004. a, b
Ackerman, A. S., vanZanten, M. C., Stevens, B., Savic-Jovcic, V., Bretherton, C. S., Chlond, A., Golaz, J.-C., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M., Krueger, S. K., Lewellen, D. C., Lock, A., Moeng, C.-H., Nakamura, K., Petters, M. D., Snider, J. R., Weinbrecht, S., and Zulauf, M.: Large-Eddy Simulations of a Drizzling, Stratocumulus-Topped Marine Boundary Layer, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 1083–1110, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2582.1, 2009. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227, 1989. a
Blahak, U.: New implementation of explicit hydrometeor sedimentation in the Seifert-Beheng 2-moment bulk microphysical scheme, https://www.cosmo-model.org/content/model/documentation/core/docu_sedi_twomom.pdf (last access: 1 September 2025), 2020. a
Blossey, P. N., Bretherton, C. S., and Wyant, M. C.: Subtropical Low Cloud Response to a Warmer Climate in a Superparameterized Climate Model. Part II: Column Modeling with a Cloud Resolving Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 1, https://doi.org/10.3894/JAMES.2009.1.8, 2009. a, b, c
Blossey, P. N., Bretherton, C. S., and Mohrmann, J.: Simulating Observed Cloud Transitions in the Northeast Pacific during CSET, Mon. Weather Rev., https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0328.1, 2021. a, b
Bolt, S. and Omanovic, N.: Evaluation of semi-implicit and explicit sedimentation approaches in the two-moment cloud microphysics scheme of ICON, Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 595–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-595-2026, 2026. a
Brendecke, J., Dong, X., Xi, B., and Zheng, X.: Maritime Aerosol and CCN Profiles Derived From Ship-Based Measurements Over Eastern North Pacific During MAGIC, Earth Space Sci., 9, e2022EA002319, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EA002319, 2022. a
Bretherton, C. S. and Wyant, M. C.: Moisture Transport, Lower-Tropospheric Stability, and Decoupling of Cloud-Topped Boundary Layers, J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 148–167, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0148:MTLTSA>2.0.CO;2, 1997. a, b, c
Bretherton, C. S., McCoy, I. L., Mohrmann, J., Wood, R., Ghate, V., Gettelman, A., Bardeen, C. G., Albrecht, B. A., and Zuidema, P.: Cloud, Aerosol, and Boundary Layer Structure across the Northeast Pacific Stratocumulus–Cumulus Transition as Observed during CSET, Mon. Weather Rev., 147, 2083–2103, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0281.1, 2019. a
Christensen, M. W., Jones, W. K., and Stier, P.: Aerosols Enhance Cloud Lifetime and Brightness along the Stratus-to-Cumulus Transition, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 17591–17598, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921231117, 2020. a
de Roode, S. R., Sandu, I., van der Dussen, J. J., Ackerman, A. S., Blossey, P., Jarecka, D., Lock, A., Siebesma, A. P., and Stevens, B.: Large-Eddy Simulations of EUCLIPSE–GASS Lagrangian Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transitions: Mean State, Turbulence, and Decoupling, J. Atmos. Sci., 73, 2485–2508, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0215.1, 2016. a
Dipankar, A., Stevens, B., Heinze, R., Moseley, C., Zängl, G., Giorgetta, M., and Brdar, S.: Large eddy simulation using the general circulation model ICON, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 7, 963–986, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000431, 2015. a, b
Eastman, R. and Wood, R.: Factors Controlling Low-Cloud Evolution over the Eastern Subtropical Oceans: A Lagrangian Perspective Using the A-Train Satellites, J. Atmos. Sci., 73, 331–351, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0193.1, 2016. a, b, c
Erfani, E., Blossey, P., Wood, R., Mohrmann, J., Doherty, S. J., Wyant, M., and O, K.-T.: Simulating Aerosol Lifecycle Impacts on the Subtropical Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition Using Large-Eddy Simulations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD037258, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037258, 2022. a, b
Feingold, G., Cotton, W. R., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Davis, J. T.: The Impact of Giant Cloud Condensation Nuclei on Drizzle Formation in Stratocumulus: Implications for Cloud Radiative Properties, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 4100–4117, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<4100:TIOGCC>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Feingold, G., Koren, I., Yamaguchi, T., and Kazil, J.: On the reversibility of transitions between closed and open cellular convection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 7351–7367, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7351-2015, 2015. a
Feingold, G., Glassmeier, F., Zhang, J., and Hoffmann, F.: Opinion: Inferring process from snapshots of cloud systems, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 10869–10885, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-10869-2025, 2025. a
Glassmeier, F., Hoffmann, F., Johnson, J. S., Yamaguchi, T., Carslaw, K. S., and Feingold, G.: Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Cooling Overestimated by Ship-Track Data, Science, 371, 485–489, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3980, 2021. a, b
Hill, A. A., Feingold, G., and Jiang, H.: The Influence of Entrainment and Mixing Assumption on Aerosol–Cloud Interactions in Marine Stratocumulus, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 1450–1464, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2909.1, 2009. a, b, c, d
Hoffmann, F., Glassmeier, F., Yamaguchi, T., and Feingold, G.: Liquid Water Path Steady States in Stratocumulus: Insights from Process-Level Emulation and Mixed-Layer Theory, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 2203–2215, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0241.1, 2020. a
Hogan, R. and Bozzo, A.: A flexible and efficient radiation scheme for the ECMWF model: A flexible radiation scheme for the ECMWF model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001364, 2018. a
Igel, A. L.: Processes Controlling the Entrainment and Liquid Water Response to Aerosol Perturbations in Nonprecipitating Stratocumulus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 81, 1605–1616, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-23-0238.1, 2024. a, b
Keeler, E., Burk, K., and Kyrouac, J.: Balloon-Borne Sounding System (SONDEWNPN), 2012-10-01 to 2013-10-03, ARM Mobile Facility (MAG), Los Angeles, CA to Honolulu, HI – container ship Horizon Spirit; AMF2 (M1), Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility [data set], https://doi.org/10.5439/1595321, 2022. a
Klein, S. A. and Hartmann, D. L.: The Seasonal Cycle of Low Stratiform Clouds, J. Climate, 6, 1587–1606, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006<1587:TSCOLS>2.0.CO;2, 1993. a, b, c
Krueger, S. K., McLean, G. T., and Fu, Q.: Numerical Simulation of the Stratus-to-Cumulus Transition in the Subtropical Marine Boundary Layer. Part II: Boundary-Layer Circulation, J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 2851–2868, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052<2851:NSOTST>2.0.CO;2, 1995. a
Lilly, D. K.: On the numerical simulation of buoyant convection, Tellus, 14, 148–172, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v14i2.9537, 1962. a
Lilly, D. K.: Models of cloud-topped mixed layers under a strong inversion, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 94, 292–309, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709440106, 1968. a
Louis, J.-F.: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 17, 187–202, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117978, 1979. a
McGibbon, J. and Bretherton, C. S.: Skill of ship-following large-eddy simulations in reproducing MAGIC observations across the northeast Pacific stratocumulus to cumulus transition region, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 9, 810–831, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS000924, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Meador, W. E. and Weaver, W. R.: Two-Stream Approximations to Radiative Transfer in Planetary Atmospheres: A Unified Description of Existing Methods and a New Improvement, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 630–643, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0630:TSATRT>2.0.CO;2, 1980. a
Minnis, P., Nguyen, L., Doelling, D. R., Young, D. F., Miller, W. F., and Kratz, D. P.: Rapid Calibration of Operational and Research Meteorological Satellite Imagers. Part I: Evaluation of Research Satellite Visible Channels as References, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 19, 1233–1249, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019<1233:RCOOAR>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a, b
Minnis, P., Nguyen, L., Palikonda, R., Heck, P. W., Spangenberg, D. A., Doelling, D. R., Ayers, J. K., Jr., W. L. S., Khaiyer, M. M., Trepte, Q. Z., Avey, L. A., Chang, F.-L., Yost, C. R., Chee, T. L., and Szedung, S.-M.: Near-real time cloud retrievals from operational and research meteorological satellites, in: Remote Sensing of Clouds and the Atmosphere XIII, edited by: Picard, R. H., Comeron, A., Schäfer, K., Amodeo, A., and van Weele, M., International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 7107, 710703, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.800344, 2008. a, b
Minnis, P., Sun-Mack, S., Young, D. F., Heck, P. W., Garber, D. P., Chen, Y., Spangenberg, D. A., Arduini, R. F., Trepte, Q. Z., Smith, W. L., Ayers, J. K., Gibson, S. C., Miller, W. F., Hong, G., Chakrapani, V., Takano, Y., Liou, K.-N., Xie, Y., and Yang, P.: CERES Edition-2 Cloud Property Retrievals Using TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS Data – Part I: Algorithms, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote S., 49, 4374–4400, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2011.2144601, 2011. a, b
Mohrmann, J., Bretherton, C. S., McCoy, I. L., McGibbon, J., Wood, R., Ghate, V., Albrecht, B., Sarkar, M., Zuidema, P., and Palikonda, R.: Lagrangian Evolution of the Northeast Pacific Marine Boundary Layer Structure and Cloud during CSET, Mon. Weather Rev., 147, 4681–4700, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0053.1, 2019. a, b
Murakami, Y., Kummerow, C. D., and van den Heever, S. C.: On the Relation among Satellite-Observed Liquid Water Path, Cloud Droplet Number Concentration, and Cloud-Base Rain Rate and Its Implication to the Autoconversion Parameterization in Stratocumulus Clouds, J. Climate, 34, 8165–8180, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0473.1, 2021. a
Painemal, D., Minnis, P., and Nordeen, M.: Aerosol Variability, Synoptic-Scale Processes, and Their Link to the Cloud Microphysics over the Northeast Pacific during MAGIC, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 5122–5139, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023175, 2015. a, b, c
Pugsley, G., Gryspeerdt, E., and Nair, V.: Cloud Fraction Response to Aerosol Driven by Nighttime Processes, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 122, e2509949122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2509949122, 2025. a
Roehrig, R., Vignon, E., Couvreux, F., Hourdin, F., Rio, C., and Lefebvre, M.-P.: GdR-DEPHY/DEPHY-SCM, Github [data set], https://github.com/GdR-DEPHY/DEPHY-SCM/tree/master (last access: 2 April 2024), 2022 a
Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: Advances in Understanding Clouds from ISCCP, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2261–2288, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<2261:AIUCFI>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Sandu, I. and Stevens, B.: On the Factors Modulating the Stratocumulus to Cumulus Transitions, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 1865–1881, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JAS3614.1, 2011. a, b, c
Sandu, I., Stevens, B., and Pincus, R.: On the transitions in marine boundary layer cloudiness, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2377–2391, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2377-2010, 2010. a, b
Sarkar, M., Zuidema, P., Albrecht, B., Ghate, V., Jensen, J., Mohrmann, J., and Wood, R.: Observations Pertaining to Precipitation within the Northeast Pacific Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 1251–1273, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0235.1, 2019. a, b
Schnelke, M.: Dataset to reproduce the figures of“Opposing entrainment effects of cloud droplet sedimentation during the pre-breakup stage of the stratocumulus to cumulus transition”, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21132428, 2026. a
Schulz, B. and Mellado, J. P.: Competing Effects of Droplet Sedimentation and Wind Shear on Entrainment in Stratocumulus, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1830–1846, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001617, 2019. a, b, c
Smagorinsky, J.: General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 91, 99–164, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2, 1963. a
Smalley, K. M., Lebsock, M. D., and Eastman, R.: Diurnal Patterns in the Observed Cloud Liquid Water Path Response to Droplet Number Perturbations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2023GL107323, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL107323, 2024. a
Stephens, G. L.: Radiation Profiles in Extended Water Clouds. II: Parameterization Schemes, J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 2123–2132, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035<2123:RPIEWC>2.0.CO;2, 1978. a, b, c
Stephens, G. L.: The Parameterization of Radiation for Numerical Weather Prediction and Climate Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 112, 826–867, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1984)112<0826:TPORFN>2.0.CO;2, 1984. a
Stevens, B., Moeng, C.-H., Ackerman, A. S., Bretherton, C. S., Chlond, A., de Roode, S., Edwards, J., Golaz, J.-C., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Lewellen, D. C., Lock, A., Müller, F., Stevens, D. E., Whelan, E., and Zhu, P.: Evaluation of Large-Eddy Simulations via Observations of Nocturnal Marine Stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 1443–1462, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2930.1, 2005. a
Turner, D. D., Vogelmann, A. M., Austin, R. T., Barnard, J. C., Cady-Pereira, K., Chiu, J. C., Clough, S. A., Flynn, C., Khaiyer, M. M., Liljegren, J., Johnson, K., Lin, B., Long, C., Marshak, A., Matrosov, S. Y., McFarlane, S. A., Miller, M., Min, Q., Minimis, P., O'Hirok, W., Wang, Z., and Wiscombe, W.: Thin Liquid Water Clouds: Their Importance and Our Challenge, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 177–190, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-2-177, 2007. a, b
Twomey, S.: The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034<1149:TIOPOT>2.0.CO;2, 1977. a
Twomey, S. A., Piepgrass, M., and Wolfe, T. L.: An assessment of the impact of pollution on global cloud albedo, Tellus B, 36B, 356–366, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.1984.tb00254.x, 1984. a
van der Dussen, J. J., de Roode, S. R., Ackerman, A. S., Blossey, P. N., Bretherton, C. S., Kurowski, M. J., Lock, A. P., Neggers, R. A. J., Sandu, I., and Siebesma, A. P.: The GASS/EUCLIPSE model intercomparison of the stratocumulus transition as observed during ASTEX: LES results, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 483–499, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20033, 2013. a, b
Williams, A. S. and Igel, A. L.: Cloud Top Radiative Cooling Rate Drives Non-Precipitating Stratiform Cloud Responses to Aerosol Concentration, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL094740, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094740, 2021. a
Wood, R.: Stratocumulus Clouds, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 2373–2423, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00121.1, 2012. a, b, c
Wood, R., O, K.-T., Bretherton, C. S., Mohrmann, J., Albrecht, Bruce, A., Zuidema, P., Ghate, V., Schwartz, C., Eloranta, E., Glienke, S., Shaw, R. A., Fugal, J., and Minnis, P.: Ultraclean Layers and Optically Thin Clouds in the Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition. Part I: Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 1631–1652, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0213.1, 2018. a
Wyant, M. C., Bretherton, C. S., Rand, H. A., and Stevens, D. E.: Numerical Simulations and a Conceptual Model of the Stratocumulus to Trade Cumulus Transition, J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 168–192, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0168:NSAACM>2.0.CO;2, 1997. a, b, c
Wyant, M. C., Bretherton, C. S., Chlond, A., Griffin, B. M., Kitagawa, H., Lappen, C.-L., Larson, V. E., Lock, A., Park, S., de Roode, S. R., Uchida, J., Zhao, M., and Ackerman, A. S.: A Single-Column Model Intercomparison of a Heavily Drizzling Stratocumulus-Topped Boundary Layer, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008536, 2007. a, b, c, d, e
Yamaguchi, T., Feingold, G., and Kazil, J.: Stratocumulus to Cumulus Transition by Drizzle, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 9, 2333–2349, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001104, 2017. a, b, c, d
Zängl, G., Reinert, D., Rípodas, P., and Baldauf, M.: The ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI-M: Description of the non-hydrostatic dynamical core, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 563–579, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378, 2015. a
Zhang, D., Ermold, B., and Morris, V.: Ceilometer (CEIL), 2012-10-01 to 2013-09-26, ARM Mobile Facility (MAG), Los Angeles, CA to Honolulu, HI – container ship Horizon Spirit; AMF2 (M1), Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility [data set], https://doi.org/10.5439/1181954, 1996. a
Zheng, X., Klein, S. A., Ghate, V. P., Santos, S., McGibbon, J., Caldwell, P., Bogenschutz, P., Lin, W., and Cadeddu, M. P.: Assessment of Precipitating Marine Stratocumulus Clouds in the E3SMv1 Atmosphere Model: A Case Study from the ARM MAGIC Field Campaign, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 3341–3359, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0349.1, 2020. a
Zhou, X., Kollias, P., and Lewis, E. R.: Clouds, Precipitation, and Marine Boundary Layer Structure during the MAGIC Field Campaign, J. Climate, 28, 2420–2442, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00320.1, 2015. a, b, c, d
Short summary
This study explores how the downward movement of cloud droplets due to gravity impacts the evolution of stratocumulus clouds over longer timescales. In contrast to previous conclusions, we find that the effect differs in the long-term depending on the amount of water in the cloud. In thick clouds, sedimentation reduces boundary layer growth as expected. In thin clouds, it can trigger a feedback chain that leads to more efficient growth, resulting in opposite outcomes for the two categories.
This study explores how the downward movement of cloud droplets due to gravity impacts the...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint