Determining the surface mixing layer height of the Arctic atmospheric boundary layer during polar night in cloudless and cloudy conditions

Akansu, Elisa F.; Dahlke, Sandro; Siebert, Holger; Wendisch, Manfred

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629

Preprints

13 Apr 2023

| 13 Apr 2023

Determining the surface mixing layer height of the Arctic atmospheric boundary layer during polar night in cloudless and cloudy conditions

Elisa F. Akansu, Sandro Dahlke, Holger Siebert, and Manfred Wendisch

Abstract. This study analyzes turbulent properties in, and the thermodynamic structure of the Arctic atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) during winter and the transition to spring. These processes influence the evolution and longevity of clouds, and impact the surface radiative energy budget in the Arctic. For the measurements we have used an instrumental payload carried by a helium filled tethered balloon. This system was deployed between December 2019 and May 2020 during the yearlong Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition. Vertically highly resolved in situ measurements of profiles of turbulent parameters were obtained reaching from the sea ice up to several hundred meters height. The two typical states of the Arctic ABL were identified: cloudless situations with a shallow and stable ABL, and cloudy conditions maintaining a mixed ABL. We have used profile data to estimate the height of the surface mixing layer. For this purpose, a bulk Richardson number criterion approach was introduced. By deriving a critical bulk Richardson number for wintertime in high latitudes, we have extended the analysis to radiosonde data. Furthermore, we have tested the applicability of the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory to derive surface mixing layer heights based on measured surface fluxes.

Received: 31 Mar 2023 – Discussion started: 13 Apr 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3878 KB)

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 (3878 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

19 Dec 2023

Evaluation of methods to determine the surface mixing layer height of the atmospheric boundary layer in the central Arctic during polar night and transition to polar day in cloudless and cloudy conditions

Elisa F. Akansu, Sandro Dahlke, Holger Siebert, and Manfred Wendisch

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15473–15489, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15473-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15473-2023, 2023

Short summary

Elisa F. Akansu, Sandro Dahlke, Holger Siebert, and Manfred Wendisch

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-629', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jun 2023

This study evaluated various observing methods used to identify the surface mixed layer (SML) height during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) campaign, using in-situ turbulence measurements from a tethered balloon platform as ground truth for the SML height. The study finds a critical bulk Richardson number (~0.12) that can be extrapolated for use with radiosonde observations. This appears to be one of the main conclusions of the study and is worthy of documentation based on careful analysis by the investigators. However, I found the scientific exploration of cloudless versus cloudy boundary layers to be lacking and feel that the basis for using other methods (particularly Monin-Obukhov similarity theory) was not properly motivated. What can the community use from these conclusions going forward? I think emphasizing the derivation of a critical bulk Richardson number is indeed significant and important. However, I found little value in defining the differences in the SML height for cloudless versus cloudy boundary layers without any type of physical interpretation. Moreover, the manuscript was a little difficult to follow in terms of structure and most importantly in terms of grammatical fluency. Some of the figures (particularly Fig. 11) also seemed to display results/statistics that weren’t entirely relevant and were hard to follow. While I think the scientific merit of the study is there and I commend the investigators for this, there needs to be some significant restructuring and improvements for it be acceptable for publication. I am therefore recommending reconsideration following major revisions.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elisa Akansu, 05 Sep 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-629', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jun 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elisa Akansu, 05 Sep 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-629', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jun 2023

This study evaluated various observing methods used to identify the surface mixed layer (SML) height during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) campaign, using in-situ turbulence measurements from a tethered balloon platform as ground truth for the SML height. The study finds a critical bulk Richardson number (~0.12) that can be extrapolated for use with radiosonde observations. This appears to be one of the main conclusions of the study and is worthy of documentation based on careful analysis by the investigators. However, I found the scientific exploration of cloudless versus cloudy boundary layers to be lacking and feel that the basis for using other methods (particularly Monin-Obukhov similarity theory) was not properly motivated. What can the community use from these conclusions going forward? I think emphasizing the derivation of a critical bulk Richardson number is indeed significant and important. However, I found little value in defining the differences in the SML height for cloudless versus cloudy boundary layers without any type of physical interpretation. Moreover, the manuscript was a little difficult to follow in terms of structure and most importantly in terms of grammatical fluency. Some of the figures (particularly Fig. 11) also seemed to display results/statistics that weren’t entirely relevant and were hard to follow. While I think the scientific merit of the study is there and I commend the investigators for this, there needs to be some significant restructuring and improvements for it be acceptable for publication. I am therefore recommending reconsideration following major revisions.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elisa Akansu, 05 Sep 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-629', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jun 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elisa Akansu, 05 Sep 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-629/egusphere-2023-629-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-629-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Elisa Akansu on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Sep 2023) by Thijs Heus

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (29 Sep 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of: Evaluation of methods to determine the surface mixing layer height of the atmospheric boundary layer in the central Arctic during polar night in cloudless and cloudy conditions

This paper evaluates methods for determining surface mixing layer (SML) height in the central Arctic using tethered balloon, radiosonde, and tower-based observations from the MOSAiC campaign. The SML height detection methods involve the energy dissipation rate, bulk Richardson number, and Monin-Obukhov similarity theory. The analysis is conducted considering both cloudless (with a surface-based inversion) and cloudy (with an elevated inversion) conditions.

Overall, the paper is well-written and easy to follow, and provides value to the scientific community. However, there are many points throughout the paper where I suggest the authors provide more detailed discussions, so the results can be better interpreted in context of the complex Arctic boundary layer dynamics. While I provide many specific comments below, they are all relatively minor in nature, and after consideration of these points, I would recommend this paper for publication.

General Comments:

Throughout the paper, there is some inconsistency between some methods/descriptions, and actual application, as it related to the time of year for the study period. For example, the title specifies that the study is for polar night, and throughout the intro and methods, ABL processes, and related surface energy budget are discussed in the context of what is relevant/true for polar night. However, Fig. 1 shows that some of the observations occurred during polar day. At other parts of the paper, it is explained that the study is conducted for cases both during polar night as well as during the transition to spring. This all needs to be cleared up. If the study period is really polar night AND spring, processes relevant to spring (e.g., the presence of solar radiation) need to be discussed and considered. Or if you only are using the cases during polar night and the transition to spring before the sun comes up (and not the cases during polar day that are shown in Fig. 1) this needs to be better clarified.

Specific Comments:

L16: This first sentence is a bit weak. The authors mention “intertwined mechanisms and feedbacks” and “Arctic climate parameters” without examples, so it comes across as very vague. This sentence could be strengthened by adding more descriptive terms.

L23: It is unclear what you mean by “The ABL is the atmospheric layer above the Earth’s surface whose effects are perceptible on small time scales.” Do you mean that the effects of the Earth’s surface on the ABL are variable on small time scales? If so, say that more clearly. If you mean something else, please clarify.

L34: It might be useful to add some more examples of how the Arctic ABL is unique. For example, the lack of convection most of the time, and the absence of a residual layer because there is no diurnal cycle of the sun for most of the year.

L41: Perhaps remind the reader here that you are referring to the processes during polar night. Or another option would be somewhere in the Intro to state that the processes described henceforth are characteristic of polar night (while there may be different processes at play during polar day that are not described).

L46: Clarify that this is the case with low clouds. If there are very high clouds, there can be little to no effect on the ABL or height of the inversion.

L77: A more true statement would be that Rib is a measure of the likelihood of turbulence to exist, where Rib below the critical value indicates an atmosphere that is likely to become or remain turbulent and Rib above the critical value indicates that an already laminar layer will not become turbulent.

Throughout: Sometimes you use the whole phrase ‘bulk Richardson number’ and other times you use the abbreviation ‘Rib’. Should be consistent.

L97: The statement “in different fields” is vague. Do you mean to say that the measurement included those of the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, biogeochemistry, and ecosystem? If so, say that.

Figure 1: I assume the white background in panel c indicates the brief period when there was a full diurnal cycle including day and night? You should clarify this by adding that to the legend, or stating that in the figure caption.

L124: Specify the distance between Met City and the balloon operations. This is important, considering that the greater the distance, the more likely that the two instrument sites are sampling a different or evolved airmass.

L128: It would be good to note that the net irradiance you are referring to is the net longwave (or as you say, terrestrial) irradiance, which is a proxy for radiative energy budget at the surface only during polar night when there is no shortwave (solar) radiation. However, regardless of the presence or lack thereof of solar radiation, the net longwave irradiance can be used to differentiate between cloudless and cloudy conditions. Clarify all of this in the text.

L139: Jozef et al. (2022) showed that over 3 hours, when comparing UAS to radiosonde observations, the ABL height did not change significantly at the 5% significance level. You could add this reference to support your choice to compare coinciding balloon and radiosonde profiles, despite that atmospheric structure can change over this 3 hour time span.

L140: A cloudless ABL can be even shallower than a cloudy ABL. This should also be mentioned when discussing observational challenges.

L177: Some more description should be provided about how you examined the thermodynamic profiles and settled on the threshold value.

L185: Please clarify that values below the critical value imply turbulence.

L200: It should be noted in the text that there could be a temperature offset between the met tower and the balloon due to a variety of reasons, e.g., the airmass evolved as it was advected between the two sites, or the two sites are sampling airmasses that were differently impacted by upwind features such as leads. This is a source of uncertainty in the Rib method that is explained.

L246: How do you know that the elevated inversion base indicates cloud top in this example? You should provide some evidence to confirm this speculation, for example, from the MOSAiC ceilometer measurements. While what you say is likely true, this should be confirmed if you are going to make the definitive statement. I make this point because many studies have concluded that there is often a shallow stable layer between the ABL and the cloud, decoupling the two (e.g., Brooks et al., 2017).

Figure 4: Is the red line the average? Please specify this in the caption for with a legend.

L294: So have you shown here that the critical Richardson number does not necessarily vary based on atmospheric conditions (cloudless vs. cloudy)? Maybe state this as a conclusion, and note whether this agrees with any previous work, or is a new finding.

L307-308: What are the implications of this statement? If you are going to mention this, you should explain the potential impact on the results.

L315: Change to “… around half of the profiles contained an SML with height less than 150 m”

L317: What conditions do the tethered balloons miss? Based on previous discussion, it seems the balloon would miss the stormy conditions, where wind speeds are too high for the balloon to fly. In these cases, the SML is much deeper, likely related to the high winds and also the presence of clouds. Explain this, and the implications for the results. For example, your cloudy conditions in this paper are all those with relatively low winds. What might you expect to see when you have clouds AND high winds? Do you think that would change the critical Rib number?

L325: While different cloud characteristics can influence the SML differently, that is not the only factor at play here. Another important factor for SML depth is wind speed, which can also be highly variable. You could suggests here that the variation in SML during cloudy conditions may be affected by variations in wind speeds.

Figure 11 caption: “Further, shading refers to similar to daylight condition.” Something sounds weird there.

L355: Do you have an explanation for this atmospheric vertical structure? Perhaps advection of a warmer airmass at higher altitudes contributed to the elevated inversion?

L377: This sentence doesn’t make sense. Is there a typo?

L382: It should also be noted that for cloudy conditions, warming of the near-surface atmosphere, relative to in the absence of clouds, lessens the suppression of shear-driven turbulence by the static stability (because the longwave cooling is reduced).

L388: Rather that saying the cause is irrelevant, perhaps say something like “the cause for turbulence generation is not of concern for the current study.”

L390: This method also requires the collection of skin temperature or 2 m temperature, in addition to the radiosondes, correct? This could be seen as a drawback as well, and should at least be noted, perhaps with a suggestion of what to do if no such measurements are collected.

L395: I find it hard to believe that not a single decoupled cloud situation was observed, as I would expect such conditions to occur occasionally throughout winter and spring. But you also did not include actual cloud height observations in this study to be able to make the claim that you make. So a more correct statement might be “For example, we were not able to quantify coupled versus decoupled clouds.” I wonder if cloud coupling/decoupling could also explain some of the variability in SML height under cloudy conditions. In addition to repeating this study during the summer, you might also suggest for future work to add cloud observations so that the coupling/decoupling state can better be quantified.

L425: The sentence would read better as “… but profile measurements with radiosondes can also be useful to either…”

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Oct 2023)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Oct 2023) by Thijs Heus

AR by Elisa Akansu on behalf of the Authors (06 Nov 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (07 Nov 2023) by Thijs Heus

AR by Elisa Akansu on behalf of the Authors (08 Nov 2023) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

19 Dec 2023

Elisa F. Akansu, Sandro Dahlke, Holger Siebert, and Manfred Wendisch

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15473–15489, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15473-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15473-2023, 2023

Short summary

Elisa F. Akansu, Sandro Dahlke, Holger Siebert, and Manfred Wendisch

Viewed

Total article views: 499 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
334	144	21	499	15	8

HTML: 334
PDF: 144
XML: 21
Total: 499
BibTeX: 15
EndNote: 8

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	127	41	5	173
May 2023	41	14	1	56
Jun 2023	62	14	4	80
Jul 2023	16	14	1	31
Aug 2023	17	11	0	28
Sep 2023	31	25	6	62
Oct 2023	21	18	3	42
Nov 2023	10	2	0	12
Dec 2023	9	5	1	15
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	127	41	5	173
May 2023	41	14	1	56
Jun 2023	62	14	4	80
Jul 2023	16	14	1	31
Aug 2023	17	11	0	28
Sep 2023	31	25	6	62
Oct 2023	21	18	3	42
Nov 2023	10	2	0	12
Dec 2023	9	5	1	15
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 495 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 495 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Cited

Latest update: 18 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3878 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The height of the mixing layer is an important factor for the surface-level distribution of energy or other substances. The experimental determination of this height – especially under the influence of clouds – is associated with large uncertainties, particularly under stable conditions that we often find during the polar night. We present a reference method using turbulence measurements on a tethered balloon, which allows us to evaluate approaches based on radiosondes or surface observations.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Determining the surface mixing layer height of the Arctic atmospheric boundary layer during polar night in cloudless and cloudy conditions

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Cited

1 citations as recorded by crossref.