2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemClassification of Arctic, midlatitude and tropical clouds in the mixed-phase temperature regime(Katlenburg-Lindau : EGU, 2017) Costa, Anja; Meyer, Jessica; Afchine, Armin; Luebke, Anna; Günther, Gebhard; Dorsey, James R.; Gallagher, Martin W.; Ehrlich, Andre; Wendisch, Manfred; Baumgardner, Darrel; Wex, Heike; Krämer, MartinaThe degree of glaciation of mixed-phase clouds constitutes one of the largest uncertainties in climate prediction. In order to better understand cloud glaciation, cloud spectrometer observations are presented in this paper, which were made in the mixed-phase temperature regime between 0 and -38°C (273 to 235K), where cloud particles can either be frozen or liquid. The extensive data set covers four airborne field campaigns providing a total of 139000 1Hz data points (38.6h within clouds) over Arctic, midlatitude and tropical regions. We develop algorithms, combining the information on number concentration, size and asphericity of the observed cloud particles to classify four cloud types: liquid clouds, clouds in which liquid droplets and ice crystals coexist, fully glaciated clouds after the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process and clouds where secondary ice formation occurred. We quantify the occurrence of these cloud groups depending on the geographical region and temperature and find that liquid clouds dominate our measurements during the Arctic spring, while clouds dominated by the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process are most common in midlatitude spring. The coexistence of liquid water and ice crystals is found over the whole mixed-phase temperature range in tropical convective towers in the dry season. Secondary ice is found at midlatitudes at -5 to -10°C (268 to 263K) and at higher altitudes, i.e. lower temperatures in the tropics. The distribution of the cloud types with decreasing temperature is shown to be consistent with the theory of evolution of mixed-phase clouds. With this study, we aim to contribute to a large statistical database on cloud types in the mixed-phase temperature regime.
- ItemLeipzig Ice Nucleation chamber Comparison (LINC): Intercomparison of four online ice nucleation counters(Katlenburg-Lindau : EGU, 2017) Burkert-Kohn, Monika; Wex, Heike; Welti, André; Hartmann, Susan; Grawe, Sarah; Hellner, Lisa; Herenz, Paul; Atkinson, James D.; Stratmann, Frank; Kanji, Zamin A.Ice crystal formation in atmospheric clouds has a strong effect on precipitation, cloud lifetime, cloud radiative properties, and thus the global energy budget. Primary ice formation above 235 K is initiated by nucleation on seed aerosol particles called ice-nucleating particles (INPs). Instruments that measure the ice-nucleating potential of aerosol particles in the atmosphere need to be able to accurately quantify ambient INP concentrations. In the last decade several instruments have been developed to investigate the ice-nucleating properties of aerosol particles and to measure ambient INP concentrations. Therefore, there is a need for intercomparisons to ensure instrument differences are not interpreted as scientific findings. In this study, we intercompare the results from parallel measurements using four online ice nucleation chambers. Seven different aerosol types are tested including untreated and acid-treated mineral dusts (microcline, which is a K-feldspar, and kaolinite), as well as birch pollen washing waters. Experiments exploring heterogeneous ice nucleation above and below water saturation are performed to cover the whole range of atmospherically relevant thermodynamic conditions that can be investigated with the intercompared chambers. The Leipzig Aerosol Cloud Interaction Simulator (LACIS) and the Portable Immersion Mode Cooling chAmber coupled to the Portable Ice Nucleation Chamber (PIMCA-PINC) performed measurements in the immersion freezing mode. Additionally, two continuous-flow diffusion chambers (CFDCs) PINC and the Spectrometer for Ice Nuclei (SPIN) are used to perform measurements below and just above water saturation, nominally presenting deposition nucleation and condensation freezing. The results of LACIS and PIMCA-PINC agree well over the whole range of measured frozen fractions (FFs) and temperature. In general PINC and SPIN compare well and the observed differences are explained by the ice crystal growth and different residence times in the chamber. To study the mechanisms responsible for the ice nucleation in the four instruments, the FF (from LACIS and PIMCA-PINC) and the activated fraction, AF (from PINC and SPIN), are compared. Measured FFs are on the order of a factor of 3 higher than AFs, but are not consistent for all aerosol types and temperatures investigated. It is shown that measurements from CFDCs cannot be assumed to produce the same results as those instruments exclusively measuring immersion freezing. Instead, the need to apply a scaling factor to CFDCs operating above water saturation has to be considered to allow comparison with immersion freezing devices. Our results provide further awareness of factors such as the importance of dispersion methods and the quality of particle size selection for intercomparing online INP counters.