Water droplet calibration of the Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP) and in-flight performance in liquid, ice and mixed-phase clouds during ARCPAC

Abstract. Laboratory calibrations of the Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP) sample area and droplet sizing are performed using water droplets of known size, generated at a known rate. Although calibrations with PSL and glass beads were consistent with theoretical instrument response, liquid water droplet calibrations were not, and necessitated a 2 μm shift in the manufacturer's calibration. We show that much of this response shift may be attributable to a misalignment of the optics relative to the axis of the laser beam. Comparison with an independent measure of liquid water content (LWC) during in-flight operation suggests much greater biases in the droplet size and/or droplet concentration measured by the CDP than would be expected based on the laboratory calibrations. Since the bias in CDP-LWC is strongly concentration dependent, we hypothesize that this discrepancy is a result of coincidence, when two or more droplets pass through the CDP laser beam within a very short time. The coincidence error, most frequently resulting from the passage of one droplet outside and one inside the instrument sample area at the same time, is evaluated in terms of an "extended sample area" (SAE), the area in which individual droplets can affect the sizing detector without necessarily registering on the qualifier. SAE is calibrated with standardized water droplets, and used in a Monte-Carlo simulation to estimate the effect of coincidence on the measured droplet size distributions. The simulations show that extended coincidence errors are important for the CDP at droplet concentrations even as low as 200 cm−3, and these errors are necessary to explain the trend between calculated and measured LWC observed in liquid and mixed-phase clouds during the Aerosol, Radiation and Cloud Processes Affecting Arctic Climate (ARCPAC) study. We estimate from the simulations that 60% oversizing error and 50% undercounting error can occur at droplet concentrations exceeding 400 cm−3. Modification of the optical design of the CDP is currently being explored in an effort to reduce this coincidence bias.

[1]  Judith A. Curry,et al.  Annual Cycle of Radiation Fluxes over the Arctic Ocean: Sensitivity to Cloud Optical Properties , 1992 .

[2]  B. Vonnegut,et al.  Technique for producing uniform small droplets by capillary waves excited in a small meniscus , 1982 .

[3]  D. Baumgardner,et al.  Icing Wind Tunnel Tests on the CSIRO Liquid Water Probe , 1985 .

[4]  Chuanfeng Zhao,et al.  Increased Arctic cloud longwave emissivity associated with pollution from mid-latitudes , 2006, Nature.

[5]  Z. Kam,et al.  Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles , 1998 .

[6]  James E. Dye,et al.  Evaluation of the forward scattering spectrometer probe. Part II: Corrections for coincidence and dead-time losses , 1985 .

[7]  George A. Isaac,et al.  Shattering during Sampling by OAPs and HVPS. Part I: Snow Particles , 2005 .

[8]  C. Hendricks,et al.  Source of Uniform-Sized Liquid Droplets , 1964 .

[9]  Advancements in Techniques for Calibration and Characterization of In Situ Optical Particle Measuring Probes, and Applications to the FSSP-100 Probe , 2007 .

[10]  Robert Wood,et al.  Ice Particle Interarrival Times Measured with a Fast FSSP , 2003 .

[11]  J. Klett,et al.  Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation , 1978, Nature.

[12]  A. Heymsfield.  On measurements of small ice particles in clouds , 2007 .

[13]  W. King,et al.  Further Performance Tests on the CSIRO Liquid Water Probe. , 1981 .

[14]  J. Lock,et al.  Calibration of the forward-scattering spectrometer probe - Modeling scattering from a multimode laser beam , 1993 .

[15]  J. Brenguier,et al.  Comparison between Standard and Modified Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probes during the Small Cumulus Microphysics Study , 2002 .

[16]  Jean-Louis Brenguier,et al.  Improvements of Droplet Size Distribution Measurements with the Fast-FSSP (Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probe) , 1998 .

[17]  V. Kattsov,et al.  Changes in the climate and sea ice of the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th and 21st centuries from data of observations and modeling , 2009 .

[18]  Laboratory Studies of Scattering Properties of Polluted Cloud Droplets: Implications for FSSP Measurements , 2008 .

[19]  M. Freer,et al.  Importance of small ice crystals to cirrus properties: Observations from the Tropical Warm Pool International Cloud Experiment (TWP‐ICE) , 2007 .

[20]  R. Handsworth,et al.  A Hot-Wire Liquid Water Device Having Fully Calculable Response Characteristics. , 1978 .

[21]  H. R. Pruppacher,et al.  A wind tunnel investigation of the internal circulation and shape of water drops falling at terminal velocity in air , 1970 .

[22]  James E. Dye,et al.  The Drop-Size Response of the CSIRO Liquid Water Probe , 1987 .

[23]  R. G. Pinnick,et al.  Calibration of Knollenberg FSSP Light-Scattering Counters for Measurement of Cloud Droplets , 1981 .

[24]  P. Field,et al.  Shattering and Particle Interarrival Times Measured by Optical Array Probes in Ice Clouds , 2006 .

[25]  M. Wendisch,et al.  Minimizing Instrumental Broadening of the Drop Size Distribution with the M-Fast-FSSP , 2004 .

[26]  D. Baumgardner,et al.  Evaluation of the Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probe. Part III: Time Response and Laser Inhomogeneity Limitations , 1990 .

[27]  Steven Platnick,et al.  Interactive comment on “On the importance of small ice crystals in tropical anvil cirrus” by E. J. Jensen et al , 2009 .

[28]  Paul L. Smith,et al.  Cloud Liquid Water Measurements on the Armored T-28: Intercomparison between Johnson Williams Cloud Water Meter and CSIRO (King) Liquid Water Probe , 2000 .

[29]  A. Korolev,et al.  Small Ice Particles in Tropospheric Clouds: Fact or Artifact? Airborne Icing Instrumentation Evaluation Experiment , 2011 .

[30]  D. Lubin,et al.  A climatologically significant aerosol longwave indirect effect in the Arctic , 2006, Nature.

[31]  Q. Min,et al.  Aerosol indirect effect studies at Southern Great Plains during the May 2003 Intensive Operations Period , 2006 .

[32]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Aerosol–cloud drop concentration closure in warm cumulus , 2004 .

[33]  D. Baumgardner,et al.  An Analysis and Comparison of Five Water Droplet Measuring Instruments. , 1983 .

[34]  John Hallett,et al.  Degradation of In-Cloud Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probe Measurements in the Presence of Ice Particles , 1985 .

[35]  J. Francis,et al.  The Arctic Amplification Debate , 2006 .

[36]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change , 1997 .

[37]  A. Korolev.  Small ice particle observations in tropospheric clouds: fact or artifact? , 2010 .

[38]  W. Cooper,et al.  Effects of Coincidence on Measurements with a Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probe , 1988 .

[39]  M. Wendisch,et al.  FSSP Characterization with Monodisperse Water Droplets , 1996 .

[40]  A. V. Korolev,et al.  Evaluation of Measurements of Particle Size and Sample Area from Optical Array Probes , 1991 .

[41]  J. Mondia,et al.  Modular microdrop generator. , 2007, The Review of scientific instruments.

[42]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Aerosol–cloud drop concentration closure for clouds sampled during the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation 2004 campaign , 2007 .

[43]  P. Pilewskie,et al.  Characteristics, sources, and transport of aerosols measured in spring 2008 during the aerosol, radiation, and cloud processes affecting Arctic Climate (ARCPAC) Project , 2010 .

[44]  J. Kahl,et al.  20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing , 2007, Science.

[45]  Judith A. Curry,et al.  Impact of clouds on the surface radiation balance of the Arctic Ocean , 1993 .

[46]  J. Brenguier,et al.  A Review and Discussion of Processing Algorithms for FSSP Concentration Measurements , 1994 .

[47]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Evaluation of a new cloud droplet activation parameterization with in situ data from CRYSTAL‐FACE and CSTRIPE , 2005 .