the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Representing Subgrid-Scale Cloud Effects in a Radiation Parameterization using Machine Learning: MLe-radiation v1.0
Abstract. Improvements of Machine Learning (ML)-based radiation emulators remain constrained by the underlying assumptions to represent horizontal and vertical subgrid-scale cloud distributions, which continue to introduce substantial uncertainties. In this study, we introduce a method to represent the impact of subgrid-scale clouds by applying ML to learn processes from high-resolution model output with a horizontal grid spacing of 5 km. In global storm resolving models, clouds begin to be explicitly resolved. Coarse-graining these high-resolution simulations to the resolution of coarser Earth System Models yields radiative heating rates that implicitly include subgrid-scale cloud effects, without assumptions about their horizontal or vertical distributions. We define the cloud radiative impact as the difference between all-sky and clear-sky radiative fluxes, and train the ML component solely on this cloud-induced contribution to heating rates. The clear-sky tendencies remain being computed with a conventional physics-based radiation scheme. This hybrid design enhances generalization, since the machine-learned part addresses only subgrid-scale cloud effects, while the clear-sky component remains responsive to changes in greenhouse gas or aerosol concentrations. Applied to coarse-grained data offline, the ML-enhanced radiation scheme reduces errors by a factor of 4–10 compared with a conventional coarse-scale radiation scheme. This shows the potential of representing subgrid-scale cloud effects in radiation schemes with ML for the next generation of Earth System Models.
Status: open (until 11 Dec 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4949', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Nov 2025 reply
Model code and software
Representing Subgrid-Scale Cloud Effects in a Radiation Parameterization using Machine Learning: MLe-radiation v1.0 Katharina Hafner https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17280639
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 136 | 0 | 1 | 137 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 136
- PDF: 0
- XML: 1
- Total: 137
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Major:
The introduction effectively argues for separating cloud radiative impacts from all-sky radiation, suggesting this approach could benefit climate change simulations by avoiding the need for retraining. However, this potential benefit is not supported by evidence in the results. To strengthen this claim, the authors should either:
I believe the model would also work for all-sky heating rate as the target, performing as well as it does for the cloud radiative effect. In this case, we don’t have to go through all the separation process.
Minor:
“O3, ρ, T, and Tsurf are normalized using their mean values µ and standard deviation σ”: Please specify the dimension over which the mean and standard deviation are calculated. Are they computed over the whole dataset? Is there any height dependency?
“We discarded a few coarse-grained cells, e.g., if the surface height of the coarse-grained cell deviated by more than 0.5m from the coarse-scale surface height.” I don’t get this part? Do you mean the variance of the fine-grained cell is larger than a certain threshold?
Figure 3. The difference between coarse-scale and coarse-grained cloud impact below 1km is quite obvious for both lw and sw. Is it concerning?
Figure 4. The notation should be improved to avoid confusing. I assume the pyRTE results are meant to represent the coarse-scale radiation result, which is the baseline here. The ground truth is the saved results from QUBICC simulation. It would be less confusing if you can make this clear in both text and the figure/caption.
“The second column of Figure 4 shows results for fully cloudy samples (total cloud cover of 100%). For pyRTE, the MAE peaks near 10km, exceeding 5K/d for both SW and LW.”: Is the pyRTE SW/LW MAE larger than 5K/d? The blue line is ~0.5K/d for SW and ~1K/d for LW.
“The corresponding R2 are low, with average values of 0.83 (SW) and 0.66 (LW), compared to 0.98 for the ML-enhanced scheme”. How are the averaged values computed? Weighted by mass or simple average over values at different levels (how the levels are distributed)?
Figure 5. The breakdown of the different regions is informative. Is it possible to make a map of bias and MAE (if you have enough samples for the 80km resolution grid or even 200km)? It would provide more information for different audiences. For example, I am curious about the quality in the Antarctica region.
Figure C1. Could you comment on the large error in the stratosphere for both pyRTE and ML?