Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4934
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4934
17 Oct 2025
 | 17 Oct 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Past, Present, and Future Arctic Radiative States Simulated by Polar-WRF

Cameron Bertossa, Tristan L'Ecuyer, and David Henderson

Abstract. Two recurring radiative states (“transmissive” and “opaque”) strongly modulate the Arctic surface energy balance through their control on downwelling longwave radiation (DLR). Because these states are primarily governed by cloud processes, many coarse-resolution models fail to capture their behavior. This study evaluates how well the Polar-optimized Weather Research and Forecasting model (PWRF) simulates present-day DLR distributions associated with these states and examines projected changes into the future. While most physics parameterizations mirror those of the widely used Arctic System Reanalysis (ASR), we test several advanced microphysics schemes and assess the impact of model resolution. Both the P3 and Morrison two-moment schemes (candidates for the next ASR version) overproduce the opaque mode, whereas the Goddard scheme used in ASR overproduces the transmissive mode. The opaque bias in P3 and Morrison arises mainly from excessive low-level, optically thick clouds over sea ice. Among all schemes, P3 best preserves the distinctiveness of the two radiative modes. Using this scheme, PWRF forced with end-of-century CESM1 output projects a shift toward more frequent opaque conditions, consistent with long-term observations at the North Slope of Alaska. While PWRF shows promise as a tool for dynamically downscaling climate model output, persistent cloud-related biases, especially over ice, warrant caution in future projections. Continued improvements in cloud representation are essential to obtain more quantitative insight into Arctic radiative regime changes.

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.
Share
Cameron Bertossa, Tristan L'Ecuyer, and David Henderson

Status: open (until 28 Nov 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Cameron Bertossa, Tristan L'Ecuyer, and David Henderson
Cameron Bertossa, Tristan L'Ecuyer, and David Henderson

Viewed

Total article views: 46 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
42 3 1 46 0 0
  • HTML: 42
  • PDF: 3
  • XML: 1
  • Total: 46
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Oct 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Oct 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 42 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 42 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 19 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
This study evaluates how well an Arctic-specific model can capture two key cloud states that control how the region traps surface radiation. The model reproduces these states better than others but still produces too many thick, low clouds. With further improvements, it could offer valuable insight into how Arctic cloud behavior and surface heat balance may evolve under future climate change.
Share