{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03494423791821561, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016356877323420074, 'mean_word_length': 5.146118721461187, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the Vertical Velocity used to Calculate the Cloud Droplet Number Concentration in a Cloud-Resolving and a Global Climate Model

Anthropogenic aerosols are effective cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). The availability of CCN affects the initial cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) and droplet size; therefore, cloud optical properties (the so-called first aerosol indirect effect). However, the estimate of CDNC from a mechanistic treatment shows significant differences from the empirical schemes mainly due to the large bias of the large-scale vertical velocity (w) (Ghan et al. 1993, 1995; Boucher and Lohmann 1995; Lohmann et al. 1999; Menon et al. 2003). In general circulation models, the vertical velocity, w, is diagnosed from the large-scale horizontal convergence or divergence. Due to the coarse resolution of the general circulation model, the diagnosed w has large uncertainties. Compared with the general circulation model, a cloud resolving model (CRM) is a high-resolution model (~1-2 km in the horizontal direction). It can explicitly (at least crudely) resolve cloud structures of individual clouds and convection. The numerical domain of a CRM can often be regarded as a grid column of a general circulation model. The CRM should produce more detailed and realistic results than the general circulation model.