Potential vorticity structure of embedded convection in a warm conveyor belt and its relevance for large-scale dynamics

Oertel, Annika; Boettcher, Maxi; Joos, Hanna; Sprenger, Michael; Wernli, Heini

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-127-2020

Articles | Volume 1, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-127-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-127-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 1, issue 1

Research article

|

09 Apr 2020

Research article |

| 09 Apr 2020

Potential vorticity structure of embedded convection in a warm conveyor belt and its relevance for large-scale dynamics

Annika Oertel, Maxi Boettcher, Hanna Joos, Michael Sprenger, and Heini Wernli

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Apr 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Sep 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Florian Pantillon, 17 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Review of “Potential vorticity structure of embedded convection in a warm conveyor belt and it’s relevance for the large-scale dynamics”', Jeffrey Chagnon, 29 Oct 2019
AC1: 'Replies to all reviewer comments', Annika Oertel, 15 Jan 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Annika Oertel on behalf of the Authors (06 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Feb 2020) by Gwendal Rivière

RR by Florian Pantillon (06 Mar 2020)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

I would be willing to review the revised paper, if the editor considers it necessary.

I am not willing to review the revised paper.

rejected

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second review of “Potential vorticity structure of embedded convection in a warm conveyor belt and its relevance for the large-scale dynamics” by Annika Oertel, Maxi Boettcher, Hanna Joos, Michael Sprenger, and Heini Wernli.

The paper has greatly improved in structure and clarity since the first review and my previous concerns have been addressed thoroughly. I appreciate the revised discussion and new schematic, which will certainly also help the reader understand the detailed processes discussed otherwise. Besides a few specific comments and suggestions listed below to further improve clarity, I therefore recommend the paper for publication in Weather and Climate Dynamics.

l. 25-27 I agree with the conclusion (“our results imply that a distinction between slantwise and convective WCB trajectories is meaningful”) but I think the given reasons are too specific and merely repeat what is stated above. Could you give a more general message?

l. 47-51 I am still not fully happy with this paragraph: WCBs and convection are put on the same level but they do not generally occur together and the cited studied do not all treat both.

l. 165-167 “with a minimum slp of 975 hPa” should appear at the end of the sentence, after “where it becomes stationary”

l. 278-281 This is not obvious to see (where exactly?)

l. 337-340 Repetition of l. 332-334

l. 352 Referring to later Fig. 9d is unnecessary here

l. 440 “stabilize” is not the most appropriate word to maintain a convective cloud

l. 465 avoid referring to Fig. 10a yet

l. 466 Fig. 9b, c?

l. 467 red contours?

l. 494-496 The comparison is misleading as scales differ between Figs 1 and 7c (individual convective updrafts) and Fig 9c (aggregated PV anomalies)

l. 513-514 Repetition of l. 504-507

l. 527-528 Can you quantify the wind acceleration or is it rather a qualitative statement?

l. 552-553 Is this shown somewhere or is it an assumption?

l. 561-562 Same comment as above; refer to Fig. 11a?

l. 564 I do not understand where the values +/-10 pvu come from: these are extremes only and not necessarily related to trajectories that ascent from lower levels.

l. 586 Fig. 12b?

Fig. 2 Consider adding a symbol for the location of Vladiana for clarity

Fig. 3 The location of the surface cyclone does not appear to match the description at l. 166-167: “propagates eastward and northward across the North Atlantic toward Iceland, where it becomes stationary”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Mar 2020) by Gwendal Rivière

AR by Annika Oertel on behalf of the Authors (19 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Mar 2020) by Gwendal Rivière

AR by Annika Oertel on behalf of the Authors (24 Mar 2020)

Short summary

Warm conveyor belts (WCBs) are important, mainly stratiform cloud forming airstreams in extratropical cyclones that can include embedded convection. This WCB case study systematically compares the characteristics of convective vs. slantwise ascent of the WCB. We find that embedded convection leads to regions of significantly stronger precipitation. Moreover, it strongly modifies the potential vorticity distribution in the lower and upper troposphere, where its also influences the waveguide.