Verification of the regional atmospheric model CCLM v5.0 with conventional data and lidar measurements in Antarctica

Zentek, Rolf; Heinemann, Günther

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1809-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1809-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1809-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

Model evaluation paper

|

06 Apr 2020

Model evaluation paper |

| 06 Apr 2020

Verification of the regional atmospheric model CCLM v5.0 with conventional data and lidar measurements in Antarctica

Rolf Zentek and Günther Heinemann

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Apr 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Aug 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review paper Zentek and Heinemann', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Answers to RC1', Rolf Zentek, 16 Jan 2020
RC2: 'Review: Zentek and Heinemann – Verification of the regional atmospheric model CCLM v5.0 with conventional data and Lidar measurements in Antarctica', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Dec 2019
- AC2: 'Answers to RC2', Rolf Zentek, 16 Jan 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Rolf Zentek on behalf of the Authors (16 Jan 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Feb 2020) by Fabien Maussion

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (04 Mar 2020) by Fabien Maussion

Dear Authors,

thank you for your revised manuscript. Based on the two reviews and my own assessment of the manuscript, I am happy to accept this paper for final publication in GMD, after a couple of technical comments (see below) are addressed. I spotted some typos which should be corrected during proof reading.

My apologies for the unusually long time needed for this review process.

Best regards,

Fabien Maussion

P1 L3: "and used in forecast mode" - I'm not sure that "forecast mode" is a generally accepted term for this kind of simulation (I personnally know and use "daily renitialisation" for example, and other groups might use yet another term). Maybe add "used in forecast mode (suite of consecutive 30H long simulations with 6H spin-up)."
P1 L15: "These results encourage for further studies using CCLM data for the regional climate in the Antarctic at high resolutions and the study of atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions processes" -> sentence difficult to read, you may consider rephrasing it.
P3 L23: "temperatures freely evolve during the 30H simulation". I think that this precision is important, since the reset of soil properties to coarse and possibly biased input data is a possible drawback of the daily reinitialisation strategy.
P6 L25: Title "Comparison with AMPS and ERA" for consistency with title 2.2
P6 L29: "differ greatly between each other in Antarctica and thus comparisons of CCLM with these data should not be seen as a validation."
P7 L17: "ParameterizationS"
P7 L25: title: consider changing to "Validation" or (in my opinion better) "Comparison to observations"
P7 L31: "An" -> A
P8 L22: "In the last section (3)" -> "In Sect. 3"
Code & Data availability section: please check that no changes in code or data were necessary after the revisions. I assume that at least the plotting scripts need an update?

Hide

AR by Rolf Zentek on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We used the climate model CCLM to simulate the Weddell Sea region with a resolutions of 15 and 5 km. By adjusting the turbulence parametrization a warm bias over the Antarctic Plateau was removed. For sea ice we found a temperature bias around +/-1 K and a wind speed bias of 1 m s^-1. Comparisons of radio soundings showed a bias around zero and a RMSE of 1–2 K for temperature and 3–4 m s^-1 for wind speed. Comparison with wind Doppler lidar yielded almost no bias and a RMSE of ca. 2 m s^-1.