Development of a new semi-empirical parameterization for below-cloud scavenging of size-resolved aerosol particles by both rain and snow

Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Moran, M. D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-799-2014

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-799-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-799-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

Development and technical paper

|

12 May 2014

Development and technical paper |

| 12 May 2014

Development of a new semi-empirical parameterization for below-cloud scavenging of size-resolved aerosol particles by both rain and snow

X. Wang, L. Zhang, and M. D. Moran

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 May 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 27 Nov 2013)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2382: 'Referee Comment on gmd-2013-151', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jan 2014
- AC C2717: 'Responses to Reviewer #1', Leiming Zhang, 28 Feb 2014
RC C2390: 'Referee Comment on gmd-2013-151', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jan 2014
- AC C2718: 'Responses to Reviewer #2', Leiming Zhang, 28 Feb 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Leiming Zhang on behalf of the Authors (28 Feb 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Mar 2014) by Olivier Boucher

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 Mar 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second Review: Development of a new semi-empirical parameterization for below-cloud scavenging of size-resolved aerosol particles by both rain and snow

By: X. Wang, L. Zhang, and M. D. Moran

General Comments:

Thank you for your thorough response to the referee comments and careful consideration of each point. I find this revised version of the manuscript to be suitable for publication, provided that the following minor corrections are addressed.

Specific Comments:

1) At several points throughout the text the terminology ‘aerosol particles’ is used. Would the term ‘aerosols’ be sufficient? The former seems redundant.

2) Could the text include a note about whether the parameterization should be applied to wet or dry aerosol size in the event that the model predicts both?

3) P8, L161: ‘…for different precipitation intensities…’ – do you mean for all precipitation intensities considered in this study or certain ones?

4) P8, L175: ‘in the size range from…’ might read better as ‘with diameters ranging from…’.

5) P9, L179-183: The only deficiency mentioned is that collection efficiencies for collectors smaller than 30 um were underestimated. Is this the most relevant deficiency since raindrops are generally larger than 30 um? Consider explicit mention of what you consider to be the most relevant deficiency.

6) P11, L229: ’..real-world situation…’. Not quite clear what you mean by this – are you referring to differences arising due to processes not considered by the theoretical formulations (such as…)?

7) P14, L303: ‘information on different rain types…’ Many CTMs do separate scavenging by convective and large-scale (stratiform) rain – perhaps change ‘will not be available’ to ‘may not be available’. It would be nice to see an explicit statement that the parameterization is equally suitable for both convective and stratiform precipitation scavenging if this is the case.

8) Towards the end of Section 3.1 you might consider adding a sentence to state that you had also formulated the parameterization using the 50th percentile as a test and give a quantification of the difference in the parameterized coefficients. Also the author response to the first referee comment 15 stated that B(d) values were not dramatically changed when using the 50th relative to the 90th percentile whereas there is about one order of magnitude difference between the scavenging coefficients – why is this? Quantify what you mean by ‘not dramatically’.

9) P19, L417: Perhaps remove the word ‘see’ preceding Table 9.

10) P22, L481-482: Wording is somewhat awkward – perhaps remove ‘four for’ and ‘two for’. Also at this point it would be helpful to add some references for the changes made to the product terms for the different pressures and temperatures and some information about how this adjustment to the product terms was done and what assumptions were made.

11) P22, L498: ‘other precipitation intensities…’ consider explicitly stating the range examined.

12) P23, L505: here you state that the precipitation type is a required input. Perhaps add ‘(rain or snow)’ after the word ‘type’.

13) P23, L507: Consider quantifying what you mean by ‘upper range’.

14) P23, L508: Perhaps change ‘all existing’ to ‘all available’.

15) Figure 1: Panels c and d include lines that are repetitive. Could these two panels be condensed into one panel?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (18 Mar 2014) by Olivier Boucher

AR by Leiming Zhang on behalf of the Authors (21 Mar 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (21 Mar 2014) by Olivier Boucher

AR by Leiming Zhang on behalf of the Authors (21 Mar 2014) Manuscript