the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How well do the regional atmospheric and oceanic models describe the Antarctic sea ice albedo?
Abstract. A realistic representation of the Antarctic sea ice surface albedo, especially during the spring and summer periods, is essential to obtain reliable atmospheric and oceanic model predictions. We used regional climate (HCLIM, MAR, RACMO), regional oceanic (MetROMS-UHel, NEMO) models and ERA5 reanalysis to investigate how well these models describe the basic sea ice characteristics: sea ice albedo, snow and ice thickness. We analyse models against a range of observations, including in-situ measurements from the ISPOL (Weddell Sea, Dec. 2004) and Marsden (McMurdo Sound, Nov. 2022) field campaigns, as well as drone and satellite data. Models perform well in reproducing the sea ice in certain conditions: during the ISPOL campaign, characterised by thicker snow cover and mild weather that resulted in daytime melt-driven albedo changes and nighttime refreezing in the snow-covered sea ice most models did well; MetROMS-UHel, NEMO, HCLIM and MAR reproduce mean values found in observations, and MetROMS-UHel captures even the observed diurnal albedo variability. However, all models had difficulty reproducing the sea ice conditions in the McMurdo Sound. The observed mean surface albedo was largely influenced by variations in drifting snow accumulation patterns over very thin (few to few tens of cm) snow cover and most models clearly overestimated the albedo. Over the colder and drier sea-ice regions with thin or patchy snow cover, the key issues affecting the accuracy of albedo models are the treatment of fractional snow cover and the snow albedo dependence on snow depth. Over the broader Weddell and Ross seas, sea ice albedo is primarily determined by sea ice concentration fields. HCLIM, MAR, and RACMO rely on ERA5 input for sea ice concentration fields, whereas MetROMS-UHel and NEMO calculate them internally, resulting in differences in both sea ice concentration and albedo patterns. Albedo parameterisations are still relevant: RACMO and ERA5 predict significantly darker sea ice over the Weddell Sea during the ISPOL campaign, while their predictions align better with observations over the Ross Sea during the Marsden campaign. Sea ice albedo is typically parameterised in models as a function of one or more variables, including air temperature, surface temperature, snow/ice type, snow grain size, snow depth, density, sea ice thickness, cloud cover fraction and solar zenith angle. The simplest approaches, like those in ERA5 and RACMO, rely on prescribed sea ice albedo values based on Ebert and Curry (1993). In HCLIM, the intermediate-complexity snow model determines snow reflectivity based on snow grain size distribution, which is only a function of snow density, and the bare ice albedo follows a simple temperature-based relationship. When more sophisticated radiative transfer schemes are applied, albedo is calculated based on the inherent optical properties of the surface, such as in MetROMS-UHel. Integrating advanced radiative transfer models to the regional climate or ocean models, represents a significant advancement in simulating surface processes.
Competing interests: Some authors are members of the editorial board of journal The Cryosphere.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(22297 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-386', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-386', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 May 2025
Review of Verro et al, “How well do the regional atmospheric and oceanic models describe the Antarctic sea ice albedo?”
Given the ongoing losses in Arctic sea ice and the signs we are now seeing of similar processes getting underway across Antarctic sea ice as well, the manuscript here is topically well placed to explore the model descriptions of Antarctic sea ice albedo and certainly suitable for TC.
In general, the study is well executed, with a clear goal, and clearly written. I particularly appreciated the lucid descriptions of the various model albedo schemes which highlight the differences well for prospective users, as well as the multi-stage progression across spatial scales during the analysis.
I have relatively few comments to make here, although I consider the first point below as something the authors should take a close look at. Once a revision is made to address these comments, I trust that the manuscript will be suitable for publication in TC.
Major comments
While I can accept the decision to defer cloud impacts on sea ice albedo to future studies, it is on this point that the manuscript should be clearer. First, the typical difference between the clear and cloudy sky albedo should be noted, using e.g. Key (2001) as a reference. Then, if all data sources in the study are indeed clear-sky only, it should be made very clear how the models are coerced to only provide albedos consistent with clear-sky conditions.
Additionally, For the satellite data, the S2 and LS9 data are evidently clear-sky, though I would appreciate clearer details on the clear-sky atmospheric correction necessary to provide the surface reflectances (yes, actually these data are nadir-view directional snow reflectances – they can well be a good estimate for the view-integrated albedo, but you should be clear on the distinction). And for CLARA-A3, I think that the data there are available for various illumination conditions – which did you use here?4.4 – it’s not clear how many drone flights contributed to the histograms in Fig 6? If from multiple days, what was the day-to-day albedo variability in the drone data? Were the flights made always over the same survey grid? Was the weather clear or cloudy – that would also change the observed snow albedo.
4.5. – you can calculate the mean SZA over the study areas as you know the S2 and LS9 overpass times; a first-order estimate for the albedo effect assuming non-melting snow would then easily be available from a lightweight albedo parameterization such as that of Gardner and Sharp (2010), please provide the assessment in the text as a yardstick for the reader.
Figs 10-12: It is my understanding that CLARA-A3 (not 3A as in some legends) albedos are either 5-day or monthly means, yet here the text refers to CLARA-A3 products from a specific day. Did you recompute your own daily version based on provided raw data?
324: 20 cm of snow is considered thin? From the optical (albedo) viewpoint, 10 cm is typically enough to effectively make the snowpack optically semi-infinite. The text does refer to this effect (for both ice and snow), but it would be nice to have quantified estimates here for typical depths required – and for the authors to consider if any of the results are affected. Also, while melt ponds are rarely encountered over Antarctic sea ice, it would be nice from the completeness viewpoint to recall that melt pond albedo is also not uniform, but depends on the depth of the pond and the properties of the underlying ice. Several appropriate references exist highlighting this effect.
Minor comments:
131: A +/-1% measurement uncertainty sounds very high for field conditions. Is this a manufacturer estimate?
fig 3: legend gets lost in the subplot c, please consider moving it outside of plot area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Dear RC2,
We thank the Reviewer #2 for the comments, which helped identify and resolve some issues in the analysis and contributed to improving the overall quality of the article. We hereby respond to the comments point by point in the supplement attachment.
With kind regards,
Kristiina Verro -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC2 and its content was therefore removed on 18 June 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386-AC3
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-386', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-386', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 May 2025
Review of Verro et al, “How well do the regional atmospheric and oceanic models describe the Antarctic sea ice albedo?”
Given the ongoing losses in Arctic sea ice and the signs we are now seeing of similar processes getting underway across Antarctic sea ice as well, the manuscript here is topically well placed to explore the model descriptions of Antarctic sea ice albedo and certainly suitable for TC.
In general, the study is well executed, with a clear goal, and clearly written. I particularly appreciated the lucid descriptions of the various model albedo schemes which highlight the differences well for prospective users, as well as the multi-stage progression across spatial scales during the analysis.
I have relatively few comments to make here, although I consider the first point below as something the authors should take a close look at. Once a revision is made to address these comments, I trust that the manuscript will be suitable for publication in TC.
Major comments
While I can accept the decision to defer cloud impacts on sea ice albedo to future studies, it is on this point that the manuscript should be clearer. First, the typical difference between the clear and cloudy sky albedo should be noted, using e.g. Key (2001) as a reference. Then, if all data sources in the study are indeed clear-sky only, it should be made very clear how the models are coerced to only provide albedos consistent with clear-sky conditions.
Additionally, For the satellite data, the S2 and LS9 data are evidently clear-sky, though I would appreciate clearer details on the clear-sky atmospheric correction necessary to provide the surface reflectances (yes, actually these data are nadir-view directional snow reflectances – they can well be a good estimate for the view-integrated albedo, but you should be clear on the distinction). And for CLARA-A3, I think that the data there are available for various illumination conditions – which did you use here?4.4 – it’s not clear how many drone flights contributed to the histograms in Fig 6? If from multiple days, what was the day-to-day albedo variability in the drone data? Were the flights made always over the same survey grid? Was the weather clear or cloudy – that would also change the observed snow albedo.
4.5. – you can calculate the mean SZA over the study areas as you know the S2 and LS9 overpass times; a first-order estimate for the albedo effect assuming non-melting snow would then easily be available from a lightweight albedo parameterization such as that of Gardner and Sharp (2010), please provide the assessment in the text as a yardstick for the reader.
Figs 10-12: It is my understanding that CLARA-A3 (not 3A as in some legends) albedos are either 5-day or monthly means, yet here the text refers to CLARA-A3 products from a specific day. Did you recompute your own daily version based on provided raw data?
324: 20 cm of snow is considered thin? From the optical (albedo) viewpoint, 10 cm is typically enough to effectively make the snowpack optically semi-infinite. The text does refer to this effect (for both ice and snow), but it would be nice to have quantified estimates here for typical depths required – and for the authors to consider if any of the results are affected. Also, while melt ponds are rarely encountered over Antarctic sea ice, it would be nice from the completeness viewpoint to recall that melt pond albedo is also not uniform, but depends on the depth of the pond and the properties of the underlying ice. Several appropriate references exist highlighting this effect.
Minor comments:
131: A +/-1% measurement uncertainty sounds very high for field conditions. Is this a manufacturer estimate?
fig 3: legend gets lost in the subplot c, please consider moving it outside of plot area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Dear RC2,
We thank the Reviewer #2 for the comments, which helped identify and resolve some issues in the analysis and contributed to improving the overall quality of the article. We hereby respond to the comments point by point in the supplement attachment.
With kind regards,
Kristiina Verro -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC2 and its content was therefore removed on 18 June 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386-AC3
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristiina Verro, 17 Jun 2025
Data sets
Accompanying data to Verro et al. paper "How well do the regional atmospheric and oceanic models describe the Antarctic sea ice albedo?" Kristiina Verro https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14637955
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
375 | 74 | 22 | 471 | 19 | 30 |
- HTML: 375
- PDF: 74
- XML: 22
- Total: 471
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1