MM5 v3.6.1 and WRF v3.5.1 model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer

Wilmot, C.-S. M.; Rappenglück, B.; Li, X.; Cuchiara, G.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2693-2014

Articles | Volume 7, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2693-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2693-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 6

Development and technical paper

|

18 Nov 2014

Development and technical paper |

| 18 Nov 2014

MM5 v3.6.1 and WRF v3.5.1 model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer

C.-S. M. Wilmot, B. Rappenglück, X. Li, and G. Cuchiara

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Nov 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Apr 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C482: 'Review of ': MM5 and WRF model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer' by Wilmot et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 May 2014
- AC C1293: 'Response to Review #1', Bernhard Rappenglück, 01 Aug 2014
RC C606: 'Review: Usage of old model versions, not sufficient description of measurement site, ...', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2014
- AC C1295: 'Response to review #2', Bernhard Rappenglück, 01 Aug 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Bernhard Rappenglück on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Aug 2014) by Patrick Jöckel

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (31 Aug 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have been responsive to the comments of the reviewers. However, after simulations were done, several issues in the results and discussion part need to be clarified before the paper can be published. These issues are listed in the following:

Major issues or questions:

* The authors estimate the roughness length near the observational location to be about 0.05m. Is a similarly low value also used for the simulations and does the value agree between both used models? What values of vegetation parameters are used in the simulation (such as vegetation fraction, leaf area index, ...), are they similar in both model runs and do they agree with the parameters of the impact area of the observations? If the surface parameters used in the model runs do not agree, which part of the differences between both models can be attributed to surface parameter differences and which to model differences?

* The values of the reflected shortwave radiation with MM5 look very strange during the first two days. The pattern does not follow the incoming shortwave radiation and corresponds to albedo values of almost up to 50%. What is the reason for this?

* I find the discussion of nighttime vs daytime behaviour of the solar radiation not useful. During nighttime, there is no solar radition so it is trivial that models work better during nighttime (mostly 0 W/m2) than during nighttime.

* Line 399-401: The models OVERestimate solar daytime insolation. Where is the underestimation you use to explain a cool bias?

* The discussion of the sensible heat flux focusses much on the bias suggesting a better performance of MM5, while r2 and the RMSE are clearly worse for MM5. Please extend your analysis. Check the values in the sentence starting in line 447.

Minor issues:

* define CST

* Still, I think the outgoing longwave radiation can be easily calculated from the other model output, so at least the sentence in line 338 ("[outgoing longwave radiation] cannot be adequately compared with surface observations") has to be formulated much weaker.

* Line 368: "The bias is positive" or "the flux is overestimated".

* Line 442: WRF had higher overall, nighttime, and daytime biases than MM5E.

* Line 520: replicate

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Sep 2014)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (11 Sep 2014) by Patrick Jöckel

AR by Bernhard Rappenglück on behalf of the Authors (21 Sep 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (25 Sep 2014) by Patrick Jöckel