the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating the Representation of Arctic Cirrus Solar Radiative Effects in the IFS with Airborne Measurements
Abstract. In this case study, measured solar irradiances above and below Arctic cirrus are compared to simulations of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts’ Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) making use of offline runs of the operational ecRad radiation scheme. Independent of the solar irradiances, cirrus properties are derived from active remote sensing and used to evaluate the optical and microphysical parameterizations in ecRad. The data set was collected in the central Arctic over sea ice (81°–90° North) with the High Altitude LOng range research aircraft (HALO) during a campaign in March and April 2022. HALO was equipped with broadband radiation and remote sensing instrumentation, including upward and downward-looking pyranometers (solar irradiance), a cloud radar, and a multi-wavelength water vapor differential absorption lidar. Flight legs above and below single-layer cirrus were performed. Measurements of solar irradiance are used to evaluate the ecRad radiation scheme in two case studies of optically thin and thick cirrus. The optically thin cirrus had a mean transmissivity of 0.9, while the optically thick cirrus had a transmissivity of about 0.6. Different ice optics parameterizations optionally available within ecRad are tested to improve the match between simulation and measurements. Furthermore, the IFS predicted ice water content and ice effective radius were replaced by values retrieved with the radar and lidar. The choice of ice optics parameterizations does not significantly improve the model-measurement agreement. However, introducing the retrieved ice microphysical properties brings measured and modelled irradiances into closer agreement for the optical thin cirrus, while the optically thick cirrus case is now simulated as too thick. From the comparison of the different ice optics parametrizations in the original and in the forced setup, it can be concluded that the ice water content forcasted by the IFS is realistic. The missmatch between observed and simulated irradiances mostly originates from the assumed or parameterized ice effective radius.
-
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
(1558 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1558 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-281', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johannes Röttenbacher, 17 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-281', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2024
In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the SW-domain properties of Arctic cirrus clouds as simulated by the IFS model by comparing them with airborne measurements. A similar study was recently published in ACP but for low-level clouds. The subject is important and useful. The work is of very good quality, the results are clear, the analyses relevant and the writing pleasant. This manuscript deserves to be published in ACP and only minor comments and suggestions are made below.
l. 273-274: (comment on Fig. 4) If I understand correctly, the measurements shown between 11 and 11:30 correspond to the results of the simulation at 11:00, and the cloud evolution between 11 and 11:30 is due to the displacement of the aircraft (i.e. the spatial evolution of the clouds) and not to the evolution of the clouds over time. I think this should mentioned more explicitly.
l. 291-292: What do you mean by compensate? The effect of the cosine of the zenith angle?
Figure 8: What is the value of IWC to differentiate between clear and cloudy skies? How are the histograms modified for small values of IWC when this threshold is changed?
l. 318-355 and Figure 9: The value of the IWC has an impact on the radiative flux and it is interesting to show the comparison between the measured values and those of the model. But the flux also depends on the vertical integral of the IWC (i.e. the ice water path, IWP). The IWP depends not only on the IWC but also on the way in which vertical overlaps occur. It would therefore be interesting to compare the IWP as well.
l. 390-391: You talk about the effect of re on the model results, but what is the sensitivity of the estimated values to re? Are the values of re used consistent with those of the model?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-281-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johannes Röttenbacher, 17 May 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-281', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johannes Röttenbacher, 17 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-281', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2024
In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the SW-domain properties of Arctic cirrus clouds as simulated by the IFS model by comparing them with airborne measurements. A similar study was recently published in ACP but for low-level clouds. The subject is important and useful. The work is of very good quality, the results are clear, the analyses relevant and the writing pleasant. This manuscript deserves to be published in ACP and only minor comments and suggestions are made below.
l. 273-274: (comment on Fig. 4) If I understand correctly, the measurements shown between 11 and 11:30 correspond to the results of the simulation at 11:00, and the cloud evolution between 11 and 11:30 is due to the displacement of the aircraft (i.e. the spatial evolution of the clouds) and not to the evolution of the clouds over time. I think this should mentioned more explicitly.
l. 291-292: What do you mean by compensate? The effect of the cosine of the zenith angle?
Figure 8: What is the value of IWC to differentiate between clear and cloudy skies? How are the histograms modified for small values of IWC when this threshold is changed?
l. 318-355 and Figure 9: The value of the IWC has an impact on the radiative flux and it is interesting to show the comparison between the measured values and those of the model. But the flux also depends on the vertical integral of the IWC (i.e. the ice water path, IWP). The IWP depends not only on the IWC but also on the way in which vertical overlaps occur. It would therefore be interesting to compare the IWP as well.
l. 390-391: You talk about the effect of re on the model results, but what is the sensitivity of the estimated values to re? Are the values of re used consistent with those of the model?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-281-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johannes Röttenbacher, 17 May 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
346 | 91 | 30 | 467 | 18 | 34 |
- HTML: 346
- PDF: 91
- XML: 30
- Total: 467
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Johannes Röttenbacher
André Ehrlich
Hanno Müller
Florian Ewald
Anna E. Luebke
Benjamin Kirbus
Robin J. Hogan
Manfred Wendisch
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1558 KB) - Metadata XML