The piggybacking methodology clearly shows that the effect of pollution (i.e., increased droplet concentration) on condensational growth of cloud droplets is rather small. No "condensational invigoration" is simulated. On the contrary, polluted shallow convective clouds (i.e., with high droplet c... Show moreThe piggybacking methodology clearly shows that the effect of pollution (i.e., increased droplet concentration) on condensational growth of cloud droplets is rather small. No "condensational invigoration" is simulated. On the contrary, polluted shallow convective clouds (i.e., with high droplet concentrations) feature smaller cloud fraction and cloud cover. This is because of faster evaporation as a result of entrainment and mixing, in agreement with previous studies (e.g., Xue and Feingold 2006). However, the differences are relatively small, a few percent. Evaporation near cloud edges is a difficult problem. It involves uncertain subgrid-scale parameterizations and pesky numerical diffusion. We looked at these in the past (i.e., Grabowski 2007, Jarecka et al. 2009, 2013), but perhaps they deserve a new look applying bin microphysics and the piggybacking methodology. Show less
