Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.509 IF 5.509
  • IF 5-year value: 5.689 IF 5-year 5.689
  • CiteScore value: 5.44 CiteScore 5.44
  • SNIP value: 1.519 SNIP 1.519
  • SJR value: 3.032 SJR 3.032
  • IPP value: 5.37 IPP 5.37
  • h5-index value: 86 h5-index 86
  • Scimago H index value: 161 Scimago H index 161
Volume 15, issue 7 | Copyright
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3719-3737, 2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 02 Apr 2015

Research article | 02 Apr 2015

Observations and comparisons of cloud microphysical properties in spring and summertime Arctic stratocumulus clouds during the ACCACIA campaign

G. Lloyd1, T. W. Choularton1, K. N. Bower1, J. Crosier1, H. Jones1, J. R. Dorsey1, M. W. Gallagher1, P. Connolly1, A. C. R. Kirchgaessner2, and T. Lachlan-Cope2 G. Lloyd et al.
  • 1Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • 2British Antarctic Survey, NERC, High Cross, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK

Abstract. Measurements from four case studies in spring and summer-time Arctic stratocumulus clouds during the Aerosol-Cloud Coupling And Climate Interactions in the Arctic (ACCACIA) campaign are presented. We compare microphysics observations between cases and with previous measurements made in the Arctic and Antarctic. During ACCACIA, stratocumulus clouds were observed to consist of liquid at cloud tops, often at distinct temperature inversions. The cloud top regions precipitated low concentrations of ice into the cloud below. During the spring cases median ice number concentrations (~ 0.5 L−1) were found to be lower by about a factor of 5 than observations from the summer campaign (~ 3 L−1). Cloud layers in the summer spanned a warmer temperature regime than in the spring and enhancement of ice concentrations in these cases was found to be due to secondary ice production through the Hallett–Mossop (H–M) process. Aerosol concentrations during spring ranged from ~ 300–400 cm−3 in one case to lower values of ~ 50–100 cm−3 in the other. The concentration of aerosol with sizes Dp > 0.5 μm was used in a primary ice nucleus (IN) prediction scheme (DeMott et al., 2010). Predicted IN values varied depending on aerosol measurement periods but were generally greater than maximum observed median values of ice crystal concentrations in the spring cases, and less than the observed ice concentrations in the summer due to the influence of secondary ice production. Comparison with recent cloud observations in the Antarctic summer (Grosvenor et al., 2012), reveals lower ice concentrations in Antarctic clouds in comparable seasons. An enhancement of ice crystal number concentrations (when compared with predicted IN numbers) was also found in Antarctic stratocumulus clouds spanning the H–M temperature zone; however, concentrations were about an order of magnitude lower than those observed in the Arctic summer cases but were similar to the peak values observed in the colder Arctic spring cases, where the H–M mechanism did not operate.

Download & links
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
Measurements of cloud microphysics are reported from the Aerosol-Cloud Coupling And Climate Interactions (ACCACIA) campaign. Concentrations of ice particles from two spring and two summer cases are compared with particular attention to the role of secondary ice in these clouds. In addition aerosol measurements were used as input to a primary ice nucleation parameterisation which was compared with observed values of primary ice in these clouds. We found higher concentrations of ice during summer.
Measurements of cloud microphysics are reported from the Aerosol-Cloud Coupling And Climate...