the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Apr 2023
Validation of the WRF-ARW Eclipse Model with Measurements from the 2019 & 2020 Total Solar Eclipses
Abstract. Field research campaigns in 2019 and 2020 collected hourly atmospheric profiles via radiosonde surrounding the 2 July 2019 and 14 December 2020 total solar eclipses over South America from locations within the paths of eclipse totality. As part of these atmospheric data collection campaigns, the eclipse module of the Advanced Research Weather Research & Forecast (WRF-ARW) model was utilized to model meteorological conditions before, during, and after the eclipse events. The surface and upper air measurements collected through these campaigns have enabled further assessment and validation of the WRF-ARW eclipse module’s performance in simulating atmospheric responses to total solar eclipses. We provide here descriptions of both field campaigns and present results from comparisons of meteorological variables both at the surface and aloft using observational datasets obtained through the campaigns. The paper concludes by recommending further scientific analyses to be explored utilizing the unique datasets presented.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2505 KB)
-
Supplement
(68 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2505 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(68 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-283', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 May 2023
This paper presents model simulations including an eclipse parameterization during two South
American eclipses at 3 sites. The field campaigns were clearly very extensive with multiple
radiosonde launches aimed at looking at stratospheric gravity waves. However, the model
comparison part of the paper really only validates the surface eclipse simulation which
works quite well. The upper air treatment is quite superficial and model validation only uses
the eclipse version to get mean errors in selected layers around the eclipse time.My main recommendation is to try to improve the upper-air part of the paper. While it may be
difficult to detect gravity wave activity in the radiosonde data, and I am sure that is a
separate paper, the model with and without the eclipse may have shown a signal worth presenting.
Can the authors look at differences between the two simulations over an area to see if any
systematic signal is detected in temperature, winds, or vertical motion. Such signals could
be used in guidance of what to look for in radiosonde data. This would address a clear gap between
the field program goals and the model simulations presented.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
The upper air validation presented is not intended to be a comprehensive model analysis, but rather to provide preliminary comparisons between model results and observations not previously described in the literature. The datasets analyzed and model configurations used here are shared publicly to enable further validation by those interested in performing more in-depth upper air analyses.
Gravity wave analysis using radiosonde data was performed for the 2019 campaign, described in detail by Colligan et al. 2020, and cited in this work. Given the present paper's focus on model validation and not on gravity waves, in depth gravity wave analysis using model data is beyond the scope of this work, though may be a focus of future manuscripts authored by the 2020 campaign teams and collaborators. Accordingly, gaps between results presented here and goals of the field campaigns are envisioned to be addressed in subsequent manuscripts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2023
I was thinking of just seeing if gravity wave signals were detectable in the differences between your simulations. It seems in the scope of the paper just to show a model difference plot of some kind that illustrates these waves. Given the scale of the shadow, these would presumably be quite long and may have inertial rotation characteristics.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carl Spangrude, 01 Jun 2023
This feedback is appreciated. The authors plan to incorporate such a model difference plot, along with associated results and conclusions, in a revised version of the manuscript. This should address the gap between the campaign goals and the model results presented as well as expand the upper air analysis portion as originally suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
The upper air validation presented is not intended to be a comprehensive model analysis, but rather to provide preliminary comparisons between model results and observations not previously described in the literature. The datasets analyzed and model configurations used here are shared publicly to enable further validation by those interested in performing more in-depth upper air analyses.
Gravity wave analysis using radiosonde data was performed for the 2019 campaign, described in detail by Colligan et al. 2020, and cited in this work. Given the present paper's focus on model validation and not on gravity waves, in depth gravity wave analysis using model data is beyond the scope of this work, though may be a focus of future manuscripts authored by the 2020 campaign teams and collaborators. Accordingly, gaps between results presented here and goals of the field campaigns are envisioned to be addressed in subsequent manuscripts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC1
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carl Spangrude, 01 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-283', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
This paper evaluates the WRF-ARW eclipse model again radiosonde observations during an eclipse in South America. The authors accomplish their objectives to (1) compare measurements from two different field campaigns of two different eclipses and (2) present preliminary results evaluating the performance of the WRF eclipse model in simulating the response to the eclipse.
The availability of data from hourly radiosonde launches is particularly unique to this study of eclipses as shown in Colligan et al.; although, the present form of this paper doesn't provide a very extensive analysis of the profile observations compared to WRF simulations. It would be informative to show a comparison of the full radiosonde profiles next to profiles of the WRF and WRF-eclipse simulations rather than a selection of statistics presently shown in the last two figures.
One other suggestion is to provide the total number of data points considered for each statistic in Table 1 and confidence intervals where appropriate since the authors use words like "high accuracy" and "significant temperature decrease."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carl Spangrude, 08 Jul 2023
The authors appreciate this feedback.
As the paper states: “This study presents basic WRF-eclipse model validation of not only surface variables but also – for the first time – preliminary validation using profile comparisons.” This paper is not intended to provide an in depth evaluation of all the profiles collected, but rather is a just a preliminary evaluation of the WRF model performance with more extensive analysis to follow.
We have chosen to represent uncertainties through MAE and RMSE instead of confidence intervals as we are not endeavoring to provide a full assessment of model performance, but only the error with our small sample size. A more extensive analysis with a larger sample size can follow this paper. The number of data points considered are limited to those represented in Figures 5 and 6, thus warranting the further analysis we suggest. A revised version of the manuscript will adjust the language used to reflect the authors acknowledgment of the limitations of the small sample size of the present analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carl Spangrude, 08 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-283', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 May 2023
This paper presents model simulations including an eclipse parameterization during two South
American eclipses at 3 sites. The field campaigns were clearly very extensive with multiple
radiosonde launches aimed at looking at stratospheric gravity waves. However, the model
comparison part of the paper really only validates the surface eclipse simulation which
works quite well. The upper air treatment is quite superficial and model validation only uses
the eclipse version to get mean errors in selected layers around the eclipse time.My main recommendation is to try to improve the upper-air part of the paper. While it may be
difficult to detect gravity wave activity in the radiosonde data, and I am sure that is a
separate paper, the model with and without the eclipse may have shown a signal worth presenting.
Can the authors look at differences between the two simulations over an area to see if any
systematic signal is detected in temperature, winds, or vertical motion. Such signals could
be used in guidance of what to look for in radiosonde data. This would address a clear gap between
the field program goals and the model simulations presented.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
The upper air validation presented is not intended to be a comprehensive model analysis, but rather to provide preliminary comparisons between model results and observations not previously described in the literature. The datasets analyzed and model configurations used here are shared publicly to enable further validation by those interested in performing more in-depth upper air analyses.
Gravity wave analysis using radiosonde data was performed for the 2019 campaign, described in detail by Colligan et al. 2020, and cited in this work. Given the present paper's focus on model validation and not on gravity waves, in depth gravity wave analysis using model data is beyond the scope of this work, though may be a focus of future manuscripts authored by the 2020 campaign teams and collaborators. Accordingly, gaps between results presented here and goals of the field campaigns are envisioned to be addressed in subsequent manuscripts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2023
I was thinking of just seeing if gravity wave signals were detectable in the differences between your simulations. It seems in the scope of the paper just to show a model difference plot of some kind that illustrates these waves. Given the scale of the shadow, these would presumably be quite long and may have inertial rotation characteristics.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carl Spangrude, 01 Jun 2023
This feedback is appreciated. The authors plan to incorporate such a model difference plot, along with associated results and conclusions, in a revised version of the manuscript. This should address the gap between the campaign goals and the model results presented as well as expand the upper air analysis portion as originally suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
The upper air validation presented is not intended to be a comprehensive model analysis, but rather to provide preliminary comparisons between model results and observations not previously described in the literature. The datasets analyzed and model configurations used here are shared publicly to enable further validation by those interested in performing more in-depth upper air analyses.
Gravity wave analysis using radiosonde data was performed for the 2019 campaign, described in detail by Colligan et al. 2020, and cited in this work. Given the present paper's focus on model validation and not on gravity waves, in depth gravity wave analysis using model data is beyond the scope of this work, though may be a focus of future manuscripts authored by the 2020 campaign teams and collaborators. Accordingly, gaps between results presented here and goals of the field campaigns are envisioned to be addressed in subsequent manuscripts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC1
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carl Spangrude, 01 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carl Spangrude, 23 May 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-283', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
This paper evaluates the WRF-ARW eclipse model again radiosonde observations during an eclipse in South America. The authors accomplish their objectives to (1) compare measurements from two different field campaigns of two different eclipses and (2) present preliminary results evaluating the performance of the WRF eclipse model in simulating the response to the eclipse.
The availability of data from hourly radiosonde launches is particularly unique to this study of eclipses as shown in Colligan et al.; although, the present form of this paper doesn't provide a very extensive analysis of the profile observations compared to WRF simulations. It would be informative to show a comparison of the full radiosonde profiles next to profiles of the WRF and WRF-eclipse simulations rather than a selection of statistics presently shown in the last two figures.
One other suggestion is to provide the total number of data points considered for each statistic in Table 1 and confidence intervals where appropriate since the authors use words like "high accuracy" and "significant temperature decrease."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carl Spangrude, 08 Jul 2023
The authors appreciate this feedback.
As the paper states: “This study presents basic WRF-eclipse model validation of not only surface variables but also – for the first time – preliminary validation using profile comparisons.” This paper is not intended to provide an in depth evaluation of all the profiles collected, but rather is a just a preliminary evaluation of the WRF model performance with more extensive analysis to follow.
We have chosen to represent uncertainties through MAE and RMSE instead of confidence intervals as we are not endeavoring to provide a full assessment of model performance, but only the error with our small sample size. A more extensive analysis with a larger sample size can follow this paper. The number of data points considered are limited to those represented in Figures 5 and 6, thus warranting the further analysis we suggest. A revised version of the manuscript will adjust the language used to reflect the authors acknowledgment of the limitations of the small sample size of the present analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-283-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carl Spangrude, 08 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Validation of the WRF-ARW Eclipse Model with Measurements from the 2019 & 2020 Total Solar Eclipses Carl Spangrude, Jennifer Fowler, Graham Moss, and June Wang https://osf.io/894jr/
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 202 | 102 | 20 | 324 | 30 | 10 | 13 |
- HTML: 202
- PDF: 102
- XML: 20
- Total: 324
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 166 | 51 |
| China | 2 | 23 | 7 |
| Ireland | 3 | 19 | 5 |
| Germany | 4 | 13 | 4 |
| France | 5 | 9 | 2 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 166
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Carl E. Spangrude
Jennifer W. Fowler
William Graham Moss
June Wang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2505 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(68 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper