CCN Cloud Processing Interhemispheric Comparisons

Cloud processing of CCN spectra is described by Hudson and Noble (2014) and Noble and Hudson (2014). Bimodal CCN spectra have also been observed in 4 Southern Hemisphere (SH) cloud research projects: SOCEX1, July 1993 and 2, Jan-Feb, 1995 and ACE1, Nov-Dec, 1995 all off Tasmania and INDOEX, Feb-Mar, 1999 Indian Ocean (Fig.). However, as in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) bimodal CCN spectra are interspersed with monomodal spectra, which indicates that cloudy boundary layers are not as well-mixed as conventional wisdom. Hoppel minima between the modes provide estimates of cloud effective supersaturations (Seff). Unlike DMA measurements particle composition/hygroscopicity (κ) is not needed for these Seff estimate because CCN are measured in terms of S. However, these Hoppel Seff often tend to be lower than Seff obtained by comparing below cloud CCN spectra with nearby cloud droplet concentrations (Nc). These Seff differences may be due to less cloud processing by smaller cloud droplets. However, this may be a smaller issue in the SH due to larger droplets in cleaner air masses. Furthermore, SH Seff may also tend to be higher for the same reason. This might reduce the Seff differences of the two types of estimates compared to the more polluted NH. SH/NH comparisons of detailed differential CCN spectra can provide an important baseline for preindustrial aerosol. Relative differences between the contribution of chemical and physical cloud processing between hemispheres also provide important baseline characteristics. Chemical processing enhance the indirect aerosol effect (IAE) by moving CCN to lower critical S (Sc), which increases droplet concentrations (Nc) whereas physical processing reduces IAE by inherently reducing CCN (Noble and Hudson 2014). The extent of cloud processing is as important as CCN sources. Hudson and Noble 2014, this meeting. Noble and Hudson 2014, this meeting.