\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{Characterizing the subsiding shell of shallow cumulus with Doppler lidar}



\author[1]{Ulrich Löhnert}%
\author[2]{fanyang}%
\author[2]{Kevin Sanchez}%
\author[2]{minttu.tuononen}%
\author[2]{crewell}%
\author[2]{mcmichael}%
\author[2]{vogelmann}%
\affil[1]{University of Cologne}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 07, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Recent LES modelling and in-situ observations sugggest that upward mass
flux into shallow cumulus is compensated by relatively narrow regions of
stronger downdrafts in close proximity to the outer cloud boundaries,
the so-called subsiding shell. This is in contrast to the classical view
that mass flux into the cloud is compensated uniformly through weak
downdrafts in the clear sky regions between the clouds. This study shows
a statistical analysis of the subsiding shell of typical shallow cumulus
clouds observed at the Souther Great Plains site of the US DOE
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement facility by means of Dopple lidar.
Although the measurement set up of the ground-based systems allows only
vertically pointing observations of overpassing clouds, it is shown that
this ground-based remote sensing technology can come to the following
conclusions:~ 1.) the exitstence of a subsiding shell at the lateral
edges of shallow culumuls clouds is confirmend, 2.) The subsiding shell
is on average Xm wide and depends mainly on .. 3.) The front edge of an
overpassing cloud shows stronger updrafts, whereas the back end a more
pronounced subsiding shell \ldots{} These results make clear that
Doppler lidar can deliver valuable insight into the coupling of cloud
thermodynamics, dynamics and microphysics - processes that are essential
to correctly resolved by models, especially in the Tropics where shallow
cumulus plays asignificant role not only for the water cycle, but also
the climate relavant cloud-radiation interaction. ~~%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy




\section*{1.) Introduction}

{\label{874460}}

Importance of shallow cumulus (grand challenges), advent of
cloud-resolving global models~~\hyperref[csl:1]{(Heinze et al., 2017)}, summarize Katzwinkel
and Jonker paper, what is possible with ground-based Doppler lidar? can
we obtain any additional (=new) information?

\par\null

\section*{2.) Data and Methodology}

{\label{507127}}

Dessribe ARM data streams, location and time spans of data analyisis -
Doppler lidar (DL) level1 and level 2 products, ARSCL, LWP from
microwave radiometer. Selection of days with shallow cumulus cases,
cloud bases height analysis with DL, detection of cloud lateral
boundaries, detection of cloud top. Sub-selection of single-layer clouds
(minimum distance, maximum depth, maximum clouds base height,..),
calculation of cloud length and distance to cloud rim by means of
closest-to-cloud-base horizontal wind speed (nearest neighbor?)~

I suggest we add 4 plots, then we have a maximum of 4000 words for the
text.

Fig. 1: Multiplot of backscatter and Doppler velocity of one 24h example
time series, as was already shown in the project presentations; we
should also add ARSCL cloud top and MWR LWP. This plot gives the reader
a feeling of what type of data we are relying on.

\section*{3.) Results}

{\label{669555}}\par\null

Fig. 2: One 2x2 plot of the shallow cumulus clouds (time vs. w = @ 1 bin
below cloud base and @ cloud center, just left and right) showing
completely different situations: a) cloud with very narrow subsiding
shell (accelerating), b) cloud with rather broader subsiding shell
(decelerating), c) cloud with no updrafts below base (dissolving), d)
??? This plots shows that the methodology principally works. However, it
is important to calculate here the distance to cloud front or back rim
in meters.

Fig. 3: 2x3 plot showing w as funtion of distance to front and back rim
of the cloud and as a function of height related to cloud base.~ Maybe
the double plots shown in the project presentation can be combined to
one, so that the velocity below cloud base is also shown? Then we would
reduce this figure to a multi-plot of 3 figures above eachother a) (top)
all clouds, b(middle) accelerating and decelerating~ clouds, c(bottom)
dissolving clouds.~

Fig. 4: Show sub-sets of data analysis; still have to produce the
analyses here.. We were thinking of classifying the subsiding shell as a
function of a) adiabaticity - is the subsiding shell stronger and more
narrow when the cloud is still more adiabatic in the beginning of it's
lifetime (i.e. LWP from MWR is close to LWPad)? LWPad can be calculated
by assuming cloud base temperature and cloud depth - this would be the
maximum LWP you can expect. b) cloud depth - is cloud vertical extent
related to the strength of the subsiding shell?~ c) what is the
dependency of the subsiding shell on wind speed below cloud base and
maybe even on horizontal wind shear?

\par\null

Additional questions to discuss \& answer

-~ Why is the subsiding shell stronger on the back rim of the cloud?

- Why does the subsiding shell ``diverge'' laterally from the cloud
below cloud base - continuity reasons?

- Can we find an objective way to describe the width of the subsiding
shell in a quantitative way? Such a metric would allow model comparisons
in a more easy way.

- Any way of finding out if our time-height plot ``hit'' the cloud edge
or went though in the cloud center? Via cloud top analyses?

- IWV (integrated vapor fluctuations associated to subsiding shell (MWR
highly enough resolved?)

- Do LES show similar signatures (LASSO - link via Andy Vogelmann)?
Specifically concerning the asymetries between front and back rim?

\section*{4.) Summary and Outlook}

{\label{401498}}

~

\section*{Acknowledgements}

{\label{687807}}

ARM summer training event, ARM data, \ldots{}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\section*{References}\sloppy
\phantomsection
\label{csl:1}Heinze, R., Dipankar, A., Henken, C. C., Moseley, C., Sourdeval, O., Trömel, S., et al. (2017). {Large-eddy simulations over Germany using {ICON}: a comprehensive evaluation}. \textit{Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society}, \textit{143}(702), 69–100. \url{https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2947}

\end{document}

