Reply to “Comments on ‘Do Ultrafine Cloud Condensation Nuclei Invigorate Deep Convection?’”

Abstract

AbstractThis is a rebuttal of Fan and Khain’s comments (hereafter FK21) on a 2020 paper by Grabowski and Morrison (hereafter GM20) that questions the impact of ultrafine cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) on deep convection. GM20 argues that “cold invigoration,” an increase of the updraft speed from lofting and freezing of additional cloud water in polluted environments, is unlikely because the latent heating from freezing of this cloud water approximately recovers the negative impact on the buoyancy from the weight of this water. FK21 suggest a variety of processes that could invalidate our claim. We maintain that our argument is valid and invite the authors to compare their microphysics scheme with ours in the same simplified modeling framework. However, pollution does affect the partitioning of latent heating within the column and likely leads to convection changes beyond a single diurnal cycle through larger-scale circulation changes. This argument explains impacts seen in our idealized mesoscale simulations and in convective–radiative equilibrium simulations by others. We agree with FK21 on the existence of a “warm invigoration” mechanism but question its interpretation. Consistent with the simulations in GM20, we argue that changes in the buoyancy can be explained by the response of the supersaturation to droplet microphysical changes induced by pollution. The buoyancy change is determined by supersaturation differences between pristine and polluted conditions, while condensation rate responds to these supersaturation changes. Finally, we agree with FK21 that the piggybacking modeling technique cannot prove or disprove invigoration; rather, it is a diagnostic technique that can be used to understand mechanisms driving simulation differences.