Aerosol impacts on drizzle properties in warm clouds from ARM Mobile Facility maritime and continental deployments

We have extensively evaluated the response of cloud-base drizzle rate (Rcb; mm day–1) in warm clouds to liquid water path (LWP; g m–2) and to cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) number concentration (NCCN; cm–3), an aerosol proxy. This evaluation is based on a 19-month long dataset of Doppler radar, lidar, microwave radiometers and aerosol observing systems from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mobile Facility deployments at the Azores and in Germany. Assuming 0.55% supersaturation to calculate NCCN, we found a power law , indicating that Rcb decreases by a factor of 2–3 as NCCN increases from 200 to 1000 cm–3 for fixed LWP. Additionally, the precipitation susceptibility to NCCN ranges between 0.5 and 0.9, in agreement with values from simulations and aircraft measurements. Surprisingly, the susceptibility of the probability of precipitation from our analysis is much higher than that from CloudSat estimates, but agrees well with simulations from a multi-scale high-resolution aerosol-climate model. Although scale issues are not completely resolved in the intercomparisons, our results are encouraging, suggesting that it is possible for multi-scale models to accurately simulate the response of LWP to aerosol perturbations.

The Mystery of Privity: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Robinson (1915)

This article examines a little known decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Robinson (1915). The examination is historical and it provides a different insight into the understanding of privity of contract, a doctrine central to contract law. The examination reveals a process of trans-Atlantic legal migration in which English law was applied to resolve an Ontario case. The nature of the resolution is surprising because it appears to conflict with the better known decision of the House of Lords, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v Selfridge and Company, Limited, which a similarly constituted panel delivered in the same week. This article argues that there was a greater malleability in the resolution of cases concerned with privity than was thought to have existed. It is also argued that the power of Canadian railway capitalism is a significant factor in understanding the legal resolution of the case. Finally, it the article considers the use of English and American precedents relevant to the case. The application of English precedents to the case led to a resolution not entirely befitting Canadian conditions.