New Routine NLTE15&mu;mCool-E v1.0 for Calculating the non-LTE CO2 15 &mu;m Cooling in GCMs of Earth&rsquo;s atmosphere

Kutepov, Alexander; Feofilov, Artem

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115

Preprints

Submitted as: development and technical paper

31 Jul 2023

Submitted as: development and technical paper |

| 31 Jul 2023

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal GMD.

New Routine NLTE15μmCool-E v1.0 for Calculating the non-LTE CO₂ 15 μm Cooling in GCMs of Earth’s atmosphere

Alexander Kutepov and Artem Feofilov

Abstract. We present a new routine for calculating the non- local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) 15 μm CO₂ cooling/heating of mesosphere and lower thermosphere in General Circulation Models. It uses the optimized models of the non-LTE in CO₂ for day and night conditions and delivered cooling/heating with an error not exceeding 1 K/Day even for strong temperature disturbances. The routine uses the Accelerated Lambda Iteration and Opacity Distribution Function techniques for the exact solution of the non-LTE problem and is about 1000 faster than the standard matrix/line-by-line solution. It has an interface for feed-backs from the model and is ready for implementation. It may use any quenching rate coefficient of the CO₂(ν₂)+O(³P) reaction, handles large variations of O(³P) and allows the user to vary the number of vibrational levels and bands to find a balance between the calculation speed and accuracy. The suggested routine can handle the broad variation of CO₂ both below and above the current volume mixing ratio, up to 4000 ppmv. This allows using this routine for modeling the Earth’s ancient atmospheres and the climate changes caused by increasing CO₂.

Received: 07 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 31 Jul 2023

Download & links

Alexander Kutepov and Artem Feofilov

Status: final response (author comments only)

CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2023-115', Ladislav Rezac, 05 Sep 2023

It is great to finally see what appears to be the current state of the art code (in terms of speed and accuracy) for the calculation of the CO2 C/H rates. In addition, the authors decided to publish their code openly, which makes it much easier to implement this model in current Earth GCMS. However, there are a few things that need to be considered for improvement (and I am looking for discussion from the authors on these issues):

1) What about other molecular species that also play a dominant role in mid-IR heating/cooling in the MLT, e.g. NO, H2O, O3 on Earth. How difficult would these be to implement? It would be really useful to have a self-consistent code able to treat all these species.
2) Role of lower boundary conditions (clouds, etc). Are such effects important for CO2 bands? How about other molecular species?
3) Can this model be applied as is to Mars or Venus conditions? What are things to consider for such applications?
4) Do you have or plan to include the code in one of the public repositories (github or gitlab) to take advantage of other people's contributions to the code, in effect making it a community driven development?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-CC1
- AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Alexander Kutepov, 15 Jan 2024
  
  Dear Ladislav,
  Thank you very much for your comments and sorry for the delay with the reply to your questions.
  We planned to reply to them together with the replies to both referee reports. We do it only now due to unexpected delays in the reviewing process for our manuscript. For your information, there is another manuscript on the same topic by Lopez-Puertas et al, 2023 submitted to the same journal, which is commented by Kutepov, 2023. I advise you to follow this discussion to get an overview of the whole story.
  Below we give your question in italic followed by our replies.
  
  1) What about other molecular species that also play a dominant role in mid-IR heating/cooling in the MLT, e.g. NO, H2O, O3 on Earth. How difficult would these be to implement? It would be useful to have a self-consistent code able to treat all these species.
  As a former user of ALI-ARMS code, you should understand that it can handle any non-LTE problem when proper inputs are given. To accelerate the RTE solution, the ODF (Opacity Distribution Function) approach is needed. We found recently that ODF works good for NO and O3 bands, and are going to check it for the H2O rotational band.
  2) Role of lower boundary conditions (clouds, etc). Are such effects important for CO2 bands? How about other molecular species?
  As we know from our tests for the 15-micron cooling of MLT, it does not depend on the boundary condition effects (like clouds, etc) due to the optical thickens of the 15-micron bands. For other molecules discussed above, whose bands are thinner, it needs to be checked. ALI-ARMS rigorously accounts for the lower radiative boundary condition. One needs only to define it properly as a table or model expression.
  3) Can this model be applied as is to Mars or Venus conditions? What are things to consider for such applications?
  The routine NLTE15μmCool-E, which we made available to users, has in its name “E” letter, which name “Earth”. However, this is generally the same routine, which has been since 2005 used in MPI MGCM (Hartogh et al, 2005), just better organized and optimized. It may be already now used for Martian atmosphere provided by proper inputs and after replacing in the file parameter.data “planet=0 (Earth)” by “planet=1 (Mars)”. This generally transform the NLTE15μmCool-E routine into the NLTE15μmCool-M routine activating the set of collisional quenching rates for the CO2(v2) vibrations relevant to the Martian atmosphere. The errors the routine has compared to the reference CO2 cooling of Marian atmosphere are discussed by Hartogh et al, 2005 for smooth T profiles. Medvedev et al, 2015 showed (see Figure 3, b and e) that our routine delivers the CO2 cooling of Martian lower thermosphere, which strongly differ from that produced by the simplified algorithm of López-Valverde, M. A., and M. López-Puertas, 2001, for calculating this cooling, which is applied in the LMD GCM of Martian atmosphere. We plan to release the NLTE15μmCool-M for general usage after we study its errors for the profiles disturbed by strong waves, typical for the Martian thermosphere.
  Finally, putting the parameter “planet=2” (Venus) will allow applying this routine for calculating the 15-micron cooling also in the Venus GCMs. We plan to release this version somewhat later after its thorough checking versus reference calculations.
  4) Do you have or plan to include the code in one of the public repositories (github or gitlab) to take advantage of other people's contributions to the code, in effect making it a community driven development?
  Yes, we have this plan. As you know, the ALI-ARMS solves the non-LTE problem for a dozen of molecules, generates limb and nadir radiation, and may retrieve pressure, temperature, or the composition by forward fit of limb signals. It will be a useful research tool for the community and will only benefit from other people's contributions. Would you be personally interested to participate in this work?
  References.
  Kutepov, A. A., Comment to “An improved and extended parameterization …” by López-Puertas, M., et al, 2023 ', https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2424/egusphere-2023-2424-CC1-supplement.pdf. 2023.
  López-Puertas, M., et al. An improved and extended parameterization of the CO2 15 μm cooling in the middle/upper atmosphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2424 Preprint. Discussion started: 6 November 2023.
  López-Valverde, M. A., and M. López-Puertas, Atmospheric non-LTE effects and their parameterization for Mars, Tech. Rep., ESA, Paris. 2001.
  Medvedev, A. S., et al, Cooling of the Martian thermosphere by CO2 radiation and gravity waves: An intercomparison study with two general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 120, 913–927, doi:10.1002/2015JE004802. 2015.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-AC2
RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2023-115', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2023

OVERVIEW
The paper presents a new routine to calculate the Non-Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (NLTE) cooling/heating for CO2 isotopes at 15um wavelength in the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (MLT); the routine is called NLTE15umCool-E-v1.0. To sum up, the paper aims to show this routine as a parameterization alternative for General Circulation Models (GCMs) of Earth's atmosphere. The authors claim it is more accurate and faster than the previous parameterization.

GENERAL COMMENTS
The new routine represents a significant innovation and will be an important option for climate models simulating ancient atmospheres or performing projections based on CO2 increase trending. Still, the new routine brings advantages, such as an expanded volume mixing ratio (VMR) range, achieving 4000 ppmv, or even higher accuracy for temperature computed between 80 - 100 km height (non-LTE region).
Despite the valuable scientific significance of the new methodology, the authors submitted the article without proofreading, which substantially affected my review. Overall, the manuscript introduction delivered an unusual approach at the beginning and along the other sections, where some crucial information was missed. In addition, the authors claim that the new combination of techniques (ALI + ODF) significantly reduced the time consumption during the simulations, as shown in Table 2 in the Ttot column. However, the manuscript doesn't provide the data and scripts used to compute each non-LTE technique comparison, making verifying the results impractical. Still, the authors compared the parameterizations KF23 and F98 with a reference model (WACCM6 CESM) but didn't explain why this model was chosen and what non-LTE parameterization is adopted within his source code. Another point is about the NLTE15µmCool-E v1.0 source code, where the users don't have a manual with instructions for users.
Due to the paper presentation demanding a substantial review and improvements, the authors should rewrite the paper to achieve the desired presentation quality and resubmit the manuscript as soon as possible. Anyway, I tried to perform a complete article review because I enjoyed the new routine purpose and intend to use it. Obviously, It's not a proofread, but it will be useful to rewrite the paper. Below, I shared some specific comments. After that, I shared some minor comments. Then, I hope the authors resubmit the revised manuscript to the GMD journal.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1) The introduction starts abruptly from the radiative heat rate (h), also called radiative flux divergence (Eq.1).
The introduction is one of the most essential sections of a paper, where the authors bring an informative discussion within the article's scope. However, the current preprint introduction is similar to a subchapter of a book, which can push the readers away due to the need for more context.
The paper should present some essential information, but I had to get the omitted information by reading other articles. For example, in the review "Infrared Radiation in the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere: Energetic Effects and Remote Sensing (Feofilov and Kutepov, 2012)" I found more precise information that is supposed to be present in the submitted preprint. The same in Kutepov et al. (2007) (https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032392) and Kutepov et al. (2016) (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-265-2017, 2017).
It's worth mentioning that in section 2, the authors describe the historical progress of some important iteration techniques along the century XX (e.g., Lambda Iteration (LI), Curtis-Matrix (CM), Accelerated Lambda Iteration (ILA), etc.). Thus, this section approaches the main article's subjects using a well-written structure despite minor details. On the other hand, the introduction is one of the preprint's weak points; to get around it, the authors must begin the paper by discussing attractive and interesting topics, considering increasing the article's readability. For instance, the Mars EXpression Mission (MEX) results or citing articles discussing the high levels of CO2 in the primitive atmosphere (4000 ppmv; threshold of the NLTE). After that, the authors would introduce the specific content gradually to present the general article's goals in the penultimate paragraph.
Overall, I recommend moving the introduction (3 first paragraphs) to section 2 and writing more general paragraphs at the initial of the introduction (e.g., astrophysics, ancient atmosphere, SABER, PFS-MEX, etc.).

2) Presentation and content connections
Please the authors must draw attention to the text's coherence and cohesion; once a well-written manuscript connects all the given information gradually. Another problem is the omitted nomenclature abbreviations, affecting the readability. For instance, the equation to compute the number of operations for the solution of radiating transfer (Nrad) is not declared as an abbreviation in the paper, only in Eq. 5. The same happens with the number of auxiliary operations (Naux). Ultimately, even though some readers can likely be familiar with this technical vocabulary, it's reasonable never to present abbreviations without declaring it properly before in the text, which occurs often in the manuscript (e.g., GCM, MLT, LIMA, ODF, VV, GRANADA, SABER, HITRAN, and others.).

3) GMD journal technical instructions
The document was prepared in disagreement with the technical instructions provided by the Copernicus/GMD journal. I recommend reading the author's guidelines and downloading the manuscript template file (Latex, Word, or R markdown). For example, the citation of Fomichev et al. (1993) is cited as Fomichev, Kutepov, Akmaev, and Shved (1993); it needs to be corrected. For articles with more than two authors, the citation needs to use the Latin acronym "et al". Otherwise, the readers could consider only the last name as a citation. For example, Fomichev et al. (1993) would be Shved (1993).
Another problem is that Tables 1 and 2 disagree with the technical instructions. Therefore, adjusting your tables before submitting the article again is necessary. Note that Table 2 can be combined to become only one.
The authors mention the unit of measurement for cooling rate in the document, sometimes adopting K/day and K/Day, but the correct is K/d. Please fix it.

4) Figure 1: CO2 vibrational levels diagram …
Figure 1 is based on Feofilov and Kutepov (2012) but is slightly different. The first problem in Figure 1 is the abbreviations FH, SH, TH, and FB. I didn’t find the abbreviation meaning in the document, but in Feofilov and Kutepov (2012) review, each one is declared: First Hot (FH), Second Hot (SH), Third Hot (TH), and Fundamental Band (FB). Another problem is the CO2 isotopes code 626, 627, 628, and 636. The authors should declare explicitly the isotopes just like in Feofilov and Kutepov (2012) in section 2.2.3 (“... The isotopes are marked using the lower digit of the atomic weight: 16O 12C 16O corresponds to 626 …”). Additionally, the authors should declare and distinguish the main isotopes of the minor CO2 isotopes in the text section 2.
I realized that the HITRAN codes (10002 and 02201) are in different positions than Figure 7 in Feofilov and Kutepov (2012). Thus, my question is: does it affect something in the diagram?
Please include the missed unit on the left side of the figure: Energy (cm^-1).
The Figure 1 caption is identical to Figure 7 in Feofilov and Kutepov (2012). I recommend using other words to avoid plagiarism issues.

5) Figures legends
Figures 4, 5, and 6 must contain a box legend declaring the latitude with your corresponding color, such as Figures 2 and 3.

6) Model evaluation
The authors present the KF23 and F98 routines errors compared to a reference model (WACCM6 CESM). Only the graphical plots and interval range aren’t enough to validate KF23. I recommend employing the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) to show that KF23 is more accurate than F98.
Well, I have some important questions:
1) Why did the authors use the WCACCM6 CESM as a reference Model?
2) What is the parameterization adopted within the reference model? Please declare it in the manuscript.
3) What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the KF23 compared to the parameterization adopted in the reference model?
The manuscript does not mention anything about the WCACCM6 CESM. If possible, request additional information from Dan Marsh.

6) Comments about the NLTE15µmCool-E v1.0 source code
The program can be compiled using a Makefile, but during the first attempt, the compilation fails due to a deprecated GCC flag "g77" (Line 53 of the Makefile). I solved it by updating it to "gfortran", which can recognize all previous GNU Fortran versions (77, 90, 95, etc.). After that, I tested the program, and at a glance, everything worked well. A minor issue is in the file main.f at line 124, where I needed to provide additional space for Pressure (P) and Temperature (T) strings; otherwise, the value number would remain print merged with P and T in the console.
Additionally, I would like to change some parameters to run different simulations, but the code "read_parameters.c" does not provide the parameter CO2 VMR. Thus, Having a namelist to set CO2 values easier would be interesting. For instance, I am setting from 400 to 4000 ppmv.
Another question is about instructions to install the routine and explain some technical aspects of the program, such as the role of the objects and libraries. Otherwise, it might be hard to couple the routine in climate models. I strongly recommend preparing a readme file.

MINOR COMMENTS

Line 3: Typo, replace “nigh” with “night”
Line 3: Cooling rate “K/Day -> “K/d” and so on along the text.
Line 13: “… with the opposite sign” replace by “… with the opposite sign:”
Line 17: “… LTE 15 um band cooling” replace by “… LTE 15 um band cooling:”
Line 21: “Declare what is the GCM abbreviation”
Line 22: where (Curtis and Goody, 1956; …) use (e.g., Curtis and Goody, 1956; …). You should do the same in other parenthesis examples along the text.
Line 40-41: The citation format is wrong, change it for Fomichev et al. (1993).
Line 48: Please avoid using terms like “below” and “above” within the document. After the typesetting stage of the manuscript, the final version will modify the position of the paragraphs, equations, tables, and figures.
Line 54: Declare what is MLT.
Line 55: Declare what LIMA is.
Line 63: Such as the Fomichev et al. (1998) parameterization is called F98; it would be reasonable to call the Kutepov and Feofilov (2023) parameterization of KF23. Please consider adopting KF23 instead of KF2023.
Line 69: ARMS wasn’t declared before in the introduction, therefore, it should be explained in the manuscript as a full nomenclature: Atmospheric Radiation and Molecular Spectra (ARMS).
Line 71: ODF means Opacity Distribution Function, but it wasn’t declared before.
Line 74: Please consider putting the citation (Hubeny and Mihalas, 2015) at the end of the sentence, Line 76.
Line 82: Add a missed comma after “… non-LTE problem …” -> “… non-LTE problem, …”
In the same line, you should change “… that in case …” -> “… that in the case …”.
Line 88: Put the citations in the final of the sentence.
Line 94: Gramma -> Change “However, the convergence of both algorithms depends, strongly on the way the local non-linearity is treated, see next section.” By “However, the convergence of both algorithms depends strongly on how the local non-linearity is treated, see next section.”
Line 99: What is GRANADA? Declare the nomenclature in the sentence.
Line 113: What is VV? Please declare VV as the intermolecular Vibrational-Vibrational.
Line 139: What do you are comparing in “This way of treating the radiative transfer is about 50-100 times than the 140 classic LBL approach”. You mean “…more than the…”, “…faster than then…”. ?
Line 147: Clarify how it can be standard and modified simultaneously.
Line 150: … “ generalized …” : remove the space at the beginning.
Line 152: Put the citation at the final of the sentence.
Line 160: ALI-ARMS should be declared before.
Line 163: What is PFS? Declare it in the text (Planetary Fourier Spectrometer)
Line 164: What is SABER? Declare it in the text (Sounding of The Atmosphere Using Broadband Emission Radiometer)
Line 175: What is VT? Declare it (Vibrational-Translational).
Line 176: in Lopez-Puertas and Taylor (2001), add DOI and ISBN in the references.
Line 179: Please, change “ro-vibrational” to “rotational-vibrational”.
Line 207-209: Consider including 1) time for solving the radiative transfer (Trad) … 2) time for auxiliary (Taux) … 3) time for matrix inversions (Tinv).
Line 210: After (Kutepov et al., 1998) add “:” . Please do the same before other equations.
Line 211: Remove the comma at the final of the equation. Do the same in other equations.
Line 217-218: Please make sure to regard the architecture name of the processor. Usually, x86 is 32-bit, whereas x64 is 64-bit. Do the same in Line 279.
Line 219: declare the gcc compiler nomenclature: gnu compiler collection
Line 226: I suggest changing “Whereas N is …. “ to “Thus, whereas N is defined by the mathematical nature of the problem and the algorithm applied, the coefficient C may depend on many factors, such as the quality of programming, language used, operational system, interpreter, computer architecture and performance, etc.”
Line 237: It is worth remembering NL meaning (number CO2 vibrational levels) once the readers see NL declared only in line 23 on the second page.
Line 245: Change to “…. is approximately N^3” and where is “Therefore,” change to “Thus, we have the following equations:”
Line 253: Include DOI and ISBN of the Book Press et al. (2002).
Line 271: After compared to the nighttime… include a comma.
Line 286: What is the reference model? Please, declare your name as well as justify the reasons to use it. In addition, declare the abbreviation Volume Mixing Ratio (VMR) here; otherwise, this abbreviation will appear suddenly at line 307.
Line 289: Change the word above to before.
Line 290: What do you mean about “various waves”? If you are talking about gravity waves, declare it explicitly in the paragraph.
Page 13: In Figure 3, there is a typo in the caption: Solis, change to Solid.
Line 319-321: Update the sentence to “For instance, the test for the nighttime for a roughly twice smaller set of bands, which does not include weak first and second hot bands of 626 and 636 isotopes, shows that the maximal cooling rate error for 400 ppmv may increase up to 3 K/d; however, computing time becomes only 10% shorter (see also Table 2).”
Line 333: include a comma after “… absorption and assimilation”
Line 335: You don’t declare before what is VT and VV.
Line 370: The authors say, “… many previous studies (e.g., Lopez-Puertas and Taylor (2001)). I was expecting to cite at least three papers. Add more citations or modify “… many previous studies”.
Line 377-378: Consider changing the sentence to “The accuracy tests of the KF23 routine were performed for a 1 km step grid with the upper boundary of the atmosphere at 130 km.”
Line 380: Add a comma after However
Line 395: Please consider updating the last conclusion paragraph to “The KF23 routine provides accurate cooling calculations in a vast range of k and O(3 395 P) variations. It also works well for very broad variations of CO2, both below and above the current density, up to 4000 ppmv. Consequently, this allows us to use this routine to model the Earth’s ancient atmospheres and the climate changes caused by increasing CO2.”
Line 424: Typo, replace “…. User to switch on an off” with “… User to switch on and off”?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Kutepov, 06 Jan 2024
  
  We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for his/her helpful comments and sincere desire to aid us to improve the manuscript.
  We gratefully accept almost all technical comments and have already included corresponding changes in the manuscript. However, according to journal rules, we cannot submit an updated manuscript until a second reviewer’s comments have been received and addressed.
  Our work was originally prepared for submission to another journal (JQSRT) over a year ago. However, we received an advice to forward it to GMD to make the new code available to the community as quickly as possible. Reviewer 1 rightly noted inconsistencies in the introduction and overview of technical methods, which resulted from reworking the manuscript of a large “classic” research paper for JQSRT into a much shorter technical paper for GMD. This rework, as we see, was not perfect. We tried to improve these sections following this reviewer comments.
  In this reply we would like to respond to general and specific comments of Reviewer 1 to let him/her know that the concept of our paper is different from how he/she sees it. We do it before the second Reviewer’s comments to keep our reply visible and to acknowledge the work of the 1^st reviewer. The problem is that we consider to submit the manuscript to another journal since the review process in GMD is stuck, with over 30 potential reviewers found by the Editors in the course of 6 months declined. This is surprising, considering the interest to this work and downloads of the new routine.
  The paper is written as a technical paper and this defines it structure. We state what variable or parameter (radiative cooling/heating h ) new procedure calculates for GCM, describe the previous methods of its calculations, and introduce the still new for atmospheric science techniques, which our routine is based on. We do not describe in detail which role h plays in the modeling of the middle and upper atmosphere. Our technical paper is addressed to a qualified user who knows why accurate non-LTE h is important for GCM. It is useless for those who are not aware of current demands of GCMs of middle and upper atmosphere.
  The missing information, which this Reviewer suggests to add, is presented in our and other previous studies we refer to in the manuscript, which are available online and which we quote. Repeating this in technical the paper is excessive. Moreover, copy-pasting the information from one’s own work is now considered to be a form plagiarism and, therefore, is not recommended (or is forbidden).
  Regarding the suggested comparison of accuracy of our routine, any interested user may check its accuracy compared to the Fomichev et al, 1998 (hereafter F98) routine. The latter is a very well-known and wide spread algorithm used by a dozen of groups running middle and upper atmosphere GCMs. For instance, it is a couple decades used in the WACCM.
  Also, for checking the differences of h calculated by both routines one does not need the same inputs we used. Any pressure/temperature profile disturbed by strong waves will give the same results. These may be both p/T generated by modern GCMs, like we did, or those retrieved from ground base or space observations, or even artificial wavy p/T generated by the user.
  Moreover, our routine may be used as a reference one for comparison with any algorithms. It utilizes exact numerical solution of the non-LTE problem compared to approximate calculations of F98 or its revised version presented recently by Lopez-Puertas et al, 2023, (hereafter L-P.23). Additionally, the CO2 non-LTE model, which is built in our routine, coincides with the reference(!) model used by L-P.23.
  We also are not sure why the Reviewer wants to have all supplements needed to compare our ALI/ODF routine performance with other algorithms like matrix or lambda iteration techniques. Detailed comparisons of these techniques were given in our previous works [Kutepov et al, 1998, Gusev and Kutepov, 2003], which we refer to in the manuscript. These results are summarized in the Table 2 of our paper. Additionally, we give mathematical expressions for operation numbers which define each algorithm performance and computing times. A useful next step would be the comparison of our ALI-ARMS non-LTE code directly with other codes, for instance with the GRANADA model. We will be glad to take part in these comparisons if we get an invitation. However, the results of these comparisons may be quite well predicted based on our Table 2.
  In our paper, we show the errors, which our routine gives versus the F98 routine for individual p/T profiles. This is the most important, since the good routine must adequately react at these individual profiles, see discussion by Kutepov, 2023 of L-P.23. We also do not see any point in showing RMS values for a set of profiles, like in L-P.23. Our goal was to show real errors of both routines, whereas presenting RMSs is a way to wash out the individual errors. For instance, RMS for 100 profiles, where each result has an error +/-10 K/Day will be 1 K/Day, but this does not tell the truth about the routine’s accuracy.
  References
  López-Puertas, M., at al. An improved and extended parameterization of the CO2 15 μmcooling in the middle/upper atmosphere,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2424 Preprint. Discussion started: 6 November 2023
  Kutepov, A. A., 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2424', 03 Dec 2023, https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2424/egusphere-2023-2424-CC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-AC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Kutepov, 14 Feb 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2023-115/gmd-2023-115-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2023-115', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jan 2024

Review report on the scientific article "New Routine NLTE15μmCool-E v1.0 for Calculating the non-LTE CO₂ 15 μm Cooling in GCMs of Earth’s atmosphere" by A. Kutepov and A. Feofilov

The solid knowledge on the spatial-temporal distributions of CO₂ cooling/heating are desirable for modelling of dynamics and temperature in General Circulation Models. A number of parameterisations are used for this purpose. All of them are characterised by either lack of accuracy or high numerical and time costs. This article describes a model that is devoid of these disadvantages.

The research is scientifically valuable. The theoretical part is presented in the paper very convincingly. The methods and approaches are correct. On my opinion this work bring deep insights on modelling of MLT region and new model essential for precise and efficient calculations. On my opinion this work should be accepted in Geoscientific Model Development after minor revision.

Comments.

1. The ODF technique is explained only briefly, the authors refer to their previous works on the implementation of the ODF to the radiative transfer in molecular bands in the planetary atmospheres. But they say no word about the limitation of this technique - is it 100% equivalent to line-by-line in terms of accuracy? If not, what are the errors introduced by this technique? Do these errors depend on the pressure-temperature profile or on CO₂ concentration or both?

2. Additionally, the authors wrote that they apply ODF exceptionally for the band branches. It looks more reasonable to apply it directly to the entire band. May the authors explain why they do not do this?

3. How the final result is sensitive to the completeness of the spectral database used for an input? I understand that the code uses a pre-formatted HITRAN dataset, but does one need to reprocess this dataset for each new version of HITRAN?

4. When authors write that the "accuracy is not sacrificed", when they change their conversion criterion from 1e-4 to 1e-2, what exactly do they mean? Could you, please, be more specific and provide actual numbers and indicate the test conditions?

5. The model is supposed to work in a plane-parallel approach. What are the errors associated with abandoning spherical geometry? Are they different for the nighttime and daytime?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-RC2
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Alexander Kutepov, 14 Feb 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2023-115/gmd-2023-115-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-115-AC4

Alexander Kutepov and Artem Feofilov

Viewed

Total article views: 567 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
395	136	36	567	24	21

HTML: 395
PDF: 136
XML: 36
Total: 567
BibTeX: 24
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 31 Jul 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2023	18	4	1	23
Aug 2023	94	18	3	115
Sep 2023	46	17	5	68
Oct 2023	21	5	1	27
Nov 2023	25	15	0	40
Dec 2023	32	10	2	44
Jan 2024	62	17	5	84
Feb 2024	51	19	10	80
Mar 2024	24	24	4	52
Apr 2024	22	7	5	34

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 31 Jul 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2023	18	4	1	23
Aug 2023	94	18	3	115
Sep 2023	46	17	5	68
Oct 2023	21	5	1	27
Nov 2023	25	15	0	40
Dec 2023	32	10	2	44
Jan 2024	62	17	5	84
Feb 2024	51	19	10	80
Mar 2024	24	24	4	52
Apr 2024	22	7	5	34

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 545 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 545 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 25 Apr 2024

Short summary

Infrared CO₂ cooling of the middle and upper atmosphere is increasing. We developed new routine for very fast and accurate calculations of this cooling in general circulation models. New algorithms accounts for non-local thermodynamic equilibrium and is about 1000 time faster than the standard matrix algorithms. It is based on advanced techniques for the non-equilibrium emission calculations in stellar atmospheres, which so far have not been used in the Earth’s and planetary atmospheres.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0