2000Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologyOpen access

Cloud Liquid Water Measurements on the Armored T-28: Intercomparison between Johnson–Williams Cloud Water Meter and CSIRO (King) Liquid Water Probe

Rand E. Feind, Andrew G. Detwiler, Paul L. Smith

Open full text 18 citations

Abstract

Comparisons are made between liquid water concentration (LWC) readings obtained from a Johnson–Williams (J–W) cloud water meter and a King (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) liquid water probe, both mounted on the armored T-28 research aircraft during penetrations of springtime convective storms in Oklahoma and Colorado. The King probe readings are almost always higher, being up to twice those of the J–W instrument in clouds with narrower cloud droplet spectra. In clouds with broader droplet spectra, the ratio often climbs to three or greater. The King probe responds partially to drops larger than cloud droplet size, and also to some ice particles, so its reading can be higher than the cloud LWC present. However, this and earlier comparisons by others indicate that the primary reason for this discrepancy is that the J–W probe often underestimates the cloud LWC due to incomplete response to larger cloud droplets. Thus, published studies involving cloud LWC in convective storms based on readings of the T-28 J–W probe have often overestimated the effects of entrainment and precipitation scavenging on depletion of updraft liquid water, particularly in those areas characterized by clouds with broad droplet size spectra.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Comparisons are made between liquid water concentration (LWC) readings obtained from a Johnson–Williams (J–W) cloud water meter and a King (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) liquid water probe, both mounted on the armored T-28 research aircraft during penetrations of springtime convective storms in Oklahoma and Colorado. The King probe readings are almost always higher, being up to twice those of the J–W instrument in clouds with narrower cloud droplet spectra. In clouds with broader droplet spectra, the ratio often climbs to three or greater. The King probe responds partially to drops larger than cloud droplet size, and also to some ice particles, so its reading can be higher than the cloud LWC present. However, this and earlier comparisons by others indicate that the primary reason for this discrepancy is that the J–W probe often underestimates the cloud LWC due to incomplete response to larger cloud droplets. Thus, published studies involving cloud LWC in convective storms based on readings of the T-28 J–W probe have often overestimated the effects of entrainment and precipitation scavenging on depletion of updraft liquid water, particularly in those areas characterized by clouds with broad droplet size spectra.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Comparisons are made between liquid water concentration (LWC) readings obtained from a Johnson–Williams (J–W) cloud water meter and a King (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) liquid water probe, both mounted on the armored T-28 research aircraft during penetrations of springtime convective storms in Oklahoma and Colorado. The King probe readings are almost always higher, being up to twice those of the J–W instrument in clouds with narrower cloud droplet spectra. In clouds with broader droplet spectra, the ratio often climbs to three or greater. The King probe responds partially to drops larger than cloud droplet size, and also to some ice particles, so its reading can be higher than the cloud LWC present. However, this and earlier comparisons by others indicate that the primary reason for this discrepancy is that the J–W probe often underestimates the cloud LWC due to incomplete response to larger cloud droplets. Thus, published studies involving cloud LWC in convective storms based on readings of the T-28 J–W probe have often overestimated the effects of entrainment and precipitation scavenging on depletion of updraft liquid water, particularly in those areas characterized by clouds with broad droplet size spectra.

Key concepts: Liquid water content, Cloud physics, Meteorology, Environmental science, Atmospheric sciences, Cloud condensation nuclei, Cloud top, Cloud computing

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cloud Liquid Water Measurements on the Armored T-28: Intercomparison between Johnson–Williams Cloud Water Meter and CSIRO (King) Liquid Water Probe — Research Paper | ScholarLens