Detecting an unambiguous radar reflectivity signature is vital to investigate cloud seeding impacts. Radar reflectivity change attributed to seeding depends on both the cloud conditions and on the concentration of silver iodide (AgI) particles. In this study, the reflectivity change induced by glaciogenic seeding using different AgI particle concentrations is investigated under various cloud conditions, using a 1D ice growth model coupled with an AgI nucleation parameterization. In addition, an algorithm is developed to estimate the minimum AgI particle concentration needed for a measurable glaciogenic cloud seeding signature. The results show that the 1D model captures the ice growth habit compared to available observations, and yields an unambiguous reflectivity change that is consistent with 3D model simulations and previous observational studies. Simulations indicate that seeding at a temperature of about -15 °C has the highest probability of detecting the radar seeding signature. This finding is consistent with the fact that the seeding temperature was about -15 °C or slightly warmer in most documented unambiguous seeding signature cases. Using the 1D model, 1000 numerical experiments are conducted, and the outputs are used to develop a parameterization to estimate the AgI particle concentration that is needed to detect an unambiguous seeding signature. Application of this parameterization to a real case suggests that seeding between -21 °C and -11 °C can possibly produce unambiguous seeding signatures, and seeding at about -15 °C requires the least AgI particle concentration. Seeding at warmer temperatures in precipitating clouds requires an extremely high AgI amount and supercooled liquid water content. The results shown in this study deepen our understanding of the relationship between the AgI particle concentration and radar seeding signature under different cloud conditions. The parameterization can be used in operational seeding decision making of the optimal amount of AgI dispersed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: