the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of radiation schemes in the CMA-MESO model using high time-resolution radiation measurements in China: I. Long-wave radiation
Abstract. Downward long-wave irradiance (DnLWI) is a variable that directly influences the surface net radiation, which in turn affects weather and climate. Due to the lack of abundant DnLWI observations, numerical weather prediction (NWP) models provide a very effective way to yield the DnLWI. Nevertheless, the reliability of the DnLWI predicted by the NWP models needs the evaluation based on the observations or accurate radiative transfer models. In this study, the DnLWI product of the China Meteorological Administration mesoscale model (CMA-MESO) was extensively validated using long-term high time-resolution (1 min) DnLWI measurements carried out at 42 sites in China. The results showed that the DnLWIs predicted by the CMA-MESO model generally agreed well with the observations, i.e., with a relative mean bias error (rMBE) of –2.0 %, but overestimated them under overcast (3.1 %) and underestimated them under dry (–5.3 %) and cloudless (–5.2 %) conditions. It is also found that the discrepancies in the DnLWI predicted by the CMA-MESO model exhibited spatial and diurnal variations, e.g., the discrepancies were significantly smaller at night than those during the day due to the stable nocturnal boundary layer. According to the results of the partial least squares analysis, the high cloud cover, medium cloud cover, planetary boundary layer height, and integrated cloud ice were the most important factors affecting the accuracy of the DnLWIs predicted by the CMA-MESO model under all sky conditions. By comparing the outputs of the CMA-MESO model and the MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission (MODTRAN) model, it was found that the uncertainties in the DnLWI predicted by the CMA-MESO model mainly arose from an inappropriate consideration of the high and medium clouds under all sky conditions as well as shortcomings in the radiation scheme under cold dry cloudless conditions.
- Preprint
(2414 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
-
CEC1: 'No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have not published the code of the CMA-MESO model with your manuscript. We can not accept this. Our policy is unambiguous in that all the code used in a submitted manuscript must be published before submission in one of the permanent repositories we can accept. Also, the manuscript must contain the link and DOI to such repository in the corresponding section. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is highly irregular, as it should not have been accepted in Discussions given such oversight.
Therefore, you must publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) urgently. We can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. If you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, in a potentially reviewed manuscript, you must include the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section with the DOI (or other permanent identifier) and the repository link containing the code. Note that when depositing the code of the model in the repository, it must include a license. If you do not license the code, it remains your property, and nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. For example, you could use the GPLv3. You simply need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Also, for "model evaluation papers", the submission guidelines clearly say that the version number of the model must be included in the title of the manuscript. Therefore, you must clarify the version number in reply to this comment and in any potentially reviewed version of your manuscript, modify the title to include it.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
I want to point out that I commented on your manuscript more than two weeks ago, asking for urgent action on the issues regarding the code availability policy. In this regard, the time that you have taken to address the problem, given the irregularity of having your manuscript under Discussions and peer review, is far from the expectations and what is necessary. We need to clarify if we can consider your manuscript for publication or if, on the other hand, we are asking reviewers to spend time reviewing a manuscript that we can not accept. In this way, I expect you to address the concerns in this reply more expeditiously.
Regarding your reply about the CMA-MESO code, we can not accept a statement saying that an address has to be contacted to get access to it. We need evidence of it. Therefore, you must provide proof of the law and license that forbids you from sharing the code, showing that it is out of your control. If this is the case, and therefore, we decide to grant you an exception to our policy, then we would expect that you deposit the code in a private long-term repository, such as Zenodo, where we will be sure to be able to access it at any time.
Please, clarify the IDL interpreter you use (NV5 or gnudatalanguage) and its version. The NV5 IDL interpreter, like many others for different languages, does not guarantee compatibility between versions. This information is vital for ensuring the reproducibility of your work. It would also be beneficial if you could share your data in a format other than .sav files, which typically require the proprietary IDL interpreter for reading.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', W. J. Quan, 01 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Aug 2024
Dear authors,
Thanks for your reply. I am quoting from your manuscript: "observations of the DnLWI carried out at 42 validation sites in China were used as a reference dataset to evaluate the performance of the CMA-MESO model in predicting the DnLWIs." In your reply you state that you do not use the CMA-MESO model; however, CMA-MESO is precisely the model you are evaluating. You state that you only have taken output data to validate (the DnLWi), not run the model. We can understand this. However:
1) you do not provide a permanent repository with the output files from the model, which would be the minimum acceptable
2) if the DnLWis data is available in the Zenodo repositories that you provide, nobody can know it: the repository does not contain a single README file explaining what the files contained in it are, and the names of them are not descriptive at all (e.g., tape5, tape8).
Therefore, first, we need you to clarify where it is possible to obtain the "original" output files from the CMA-MESO model with the DnLWi data. If you have uploaded them to your existing repositories, please make clear what files contain them.
However, it is clear here that your work is the validation of the CMA-MESO model. The fact that you (the authors) have not run it does not change this. As you are validating a model, we expect that you share it. If the DnLWi was distributed as a separate product by the CMA, not doing it could be understandable, but it seems to be different here. On top of it, four of the five authors are staff working for the CMA, which makes it even harder to understand and accept that you do not have access to the CMA-MESO code. You quote a text that you say is a reply by email from a generic contact address inside your organization (the CMA) that does not provide any information. To be clear, if I write to the same address asking for the code, chances are I could get the same reply and never be granted access to the code of the model being evaluated in this submission. It is clear that you cannot get this issue addressed working for the same organization, so I would not expect more success if I were somebody contacting from a different organization. On top of this, we need something other than quoting an email; as I said, we need official documentation: a signed internal order that forbids you to distribute the code, a license, etc.
Also, I note that in your reply, you mentioned that you used the IDL interpreter V8.2. This information does not make sense. IDL is a programming language, not an interpreter. There are several IDL language interpreters; the one you use needs to be clarified. As you refer to version 8.2, you could be referring here to the IDL interpreter marketed years ago by the former ITTVis, an interpreter now owned by the company NV5. If this is the case, please clarify.
Moreover, as you say, .sav files are binary files. This means I can only open them if I buy a license for the same interpreter you used. As anyone should be able of reading the data that you provide without to have to pay a software license for it, please, save them in a different format that does not depend on a commercial product and owning it.
To summarize, we are asking you here for two main actions:
1) Please clarify if you have deposited the outputs from the CMA-MESO model containing the DnLWi data in your repositories and what files contain them, as well as whether the full raw DnLWi data are there.
2) Please clarify whether you can access the CMA-MESO code.
- If you have the code, we need formal evidence that you can not distribute it, and this is not a reply to this request with a text that you say corresponds to an email and does not address the issue (e.g., the license of the model, formally signed letters, etc.).
If you do not have the CMA-MESO code, we need to clarify why it is this way, as you work in the same organization that develops it. We also need evidence (e.g., formal signed letters, etc.) that the relevant department or authority in your organization refuses to give you access to the code and distribute it, including a justification for it (a law or similar). That is, refusing to share the code can not be a simple decision by a person who is not forced by law.
With all these clarifications and information on the data and code, we could study the possibility of granting you an exception to our policy.
At this point, for the fairness of the review process and to avoid wasting time evaluating a manuscript that is facing great difficulties in solving the issues related to compliance with the code, I recommend that the handling topical editor stop inviting reviewers and not make a decision until the situation with the code policy is solved.Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on CEC3', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on CEC3', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Aug 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', W. J. Quan, 01 Aug 2024
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Jul 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on Evaluation of radiation schemes in the CMA-MESO model using high time-resolution radiation measurements in China: I. Long-wave radiation', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2024
This study compares the downward longwave irradiance predicted by the China Meteorological Administration mesoscale model (CMA-MESO) with high-resolution long-term measurements from 42 sites in China. The authors conclude that the model generally agrees with the observations. The correlation between the prediction error and multiple factors (including geolocation, hour of day, cloud amount, etc.) is analyzed. Generally speaking, the dependence of model error on clouds is important and interesting to me. However, the results and the findings presented in current form may not be sufficiently insightful and novel enough to serve as direct feedback to model improvements. In other words, we know that clouds are among the largest contributors to the model uncertainty. Emphasizing it again is not valuable for future model development. It is still necessary to figure out what physical processes specifically contribute to model biases. Approximations made in the radiation scheme? Errors in cloud microphysics? I also have other major concerns regarding the title and the methodology of this study, notably the use of the MODTRAN model. Overall, I recommend a major revision or a possible rejection of this version of the manuscript.
Please see the attached file for specific major concerns and minor suggestions.
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', W. J. Quan, 15 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC6-supplement.pdf
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', W. J. Quan, 15 Aug 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-74', Xiaohong Liu, 03 Aug 2024
Dear Authors,
According to the policies as outlined by the Chief Editor, please solve the issue of the code compliance. Otherwise, we can't proceed with the following-up steps.
Thanks,
Xiaohong Liu
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-EC1 -
AC5: 'Reply on EC1', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
Dear editor,
Thank you for your reminder.
I have replied the email from the executive editor.
Best regards,
Weijun Quan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on EC1', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
-
CEC1: 'No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have not published the code of the CMA-MESO model with your manuscript. We can not accept this. Our policy is unambiguous in that all the code used in a submitted manuscript must be published before submission in one of the permanent repositories we can accept. Also, the manuscript must contain the link and DOI to such repository in the corresponding section. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is highly irregular, as it should not have been accepted in Discussions given such oversight.
Therefore, you must publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) urgently. We can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. If you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, in a potentially reviewed manuscript, you must include the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section with the DOI (or other permanent identifier) and the repository link containing the code. Note that when depositing the code of the model in the repository, it must include a license. If you do not license the code, it remains your property, and nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. For example, you could use the GPLv3. You simply need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Also, for "model evaluation papers", the submission guidelines clearly say that the version number of the model must be included in the title of the manuscript. Therefore, you must clarify the version number in reply to this comment and in any potentially reviewed version of your manuscript, modify the title to include it.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
I want to point out that I commented on your manuscript more than two weeks ago, asking for urgent action on the issues regarding the code availability policy. In this regard, the time that you have taken to address the problem, given the irregularity of having your manuscript under Discussions and peer review, is far from the expectations and what is necessary. We need to clarify if we can consider your manuscript for publication or if, on the other hand, we are asking reviewers to spend time reviewing a manuscript that we can not accept. In this way, I expect you to address the concerns in this reply more expeditiously.
Regarding your reply about the CMA-MESO code, we can not accept a statement saying that an address has to be contacted to get access to it. We need evidence of it. Therefore, you must provide proof of the law and license that forbids you from sharing the code, showing that it is out of your control. If this is the case, and therefore, we decide to grant you an exception to our policy, then we would expect that you deposit the code in a private long-term repository, such as Zenodo, where we will be sure to be able to access it at any time.
Please, clarify the IDL interpreter you use (NV5 or gnudatalanguage) and its version. The NV5 IDL interpreter, like many others for different languages, does not guarantee compatibility between versions. This information is vital for ensuring the reproducibility of your work. It would also be beneficial if you could share your data in a format other than .sav files, which typically require the proprietary IDL interpreter for reading.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', W. J. Quan, 01 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Aug 2024
Dear authors,
Thanks for your reply. I am quoting from your manuscript: "observations of the DnLWI carried out at 42 validation sites in China were used as a reference dataset to evaluate the performance of the CMA-MESO model in predicting the DnLWIs." In your reply you state that you do not use the CMA-MESO model; however, CMA-MESO is precisely the model you are evaluating. You state that you only have taken output data to validate (the DnLWi), not run the model. We can understand this. However:
1) you do not provide a permanent repository with the output files from the model, which would be the minimum acceptable
2) if the DnLWis data is available in the Zenodo repositories that you provide, nobody can know it: the repository does not contain a single README file explaining what the files contained in it are, and the names of them are not descriptive at all (e.g., tape5, tape8).
Therefore, first, we need you to clarify where it is possible to obtain the "original" output files from the CMA-MESO model with the DnLWi data. If you have uploaded them to your existing repositories, please make clear what files contain them.
However, it is clear here that your work is the validation of the CMA-MESO model. The fact that you (the authors) have not run it does not change this. As you are validating a model, we expect that you share it. If the DnLWi was distributed as a separate product by the CMA, not doing it could be understandable, but it seems to be different here. On top of it, four of the five authors are staff working for the CMA, which makes it even harder to understand and accept that you do not have access to the CMA-MESO code. You quote a text that you say is a reply by email from a generic contact address inside your organization (the CMA) that does not provide any information. To be clear, if I write to the same address asking for the code, chances are I could get the same reply and never be granted access to the code of the model being evaluated in this submission. It is clear that you cannot get this issue addressed working for the same organization, so I would not expect more success if I were somebody contacting from a different organization. On top of this, we need something other than quoting an email; as I said, we need official documentation: a signed internal order that forbids you to distribute the code, a license, etc.
Also, I note that in your reply, you mentioned that you used the IDL interpreter V8.2. This information does not make sense. IDL is a programming language, not an interpreter. There are several IDL language interpreters; the one you use needs to be clarified. As you refer to version 8.2, you could be referring here to the IDL interpreter marketed years ago by the former ITTVis, an interpreter now owned by the company NV5. If this is the case, please clarify.
Moreover, as you say, .sav files are binary files. This means I can only open them if I buy a license for the same interpreter you used. As anyone should be able of reading the data that you provide without to have to pay a software license for it, please, save them in a different format that does not depend on a commercial product and owning it.
To summarize, we are asking you here for two main actions:
1) Please clarify if you have deposited the outputs from the CMA-MESO model containing the DnLWi data in your repositories and what files contain them, as well as whether the full raw DnLWi data are there.
2) Please clarify whether you can access the CMA-MESO code.
- If you have the code, we need formal evidence that you can not distribute it, and this is not a reply to this request with a text that you say corresponds to an email and does not address the issue (e.g., the license of the model, formally signed letters, etc.).
If you do not have the CMA-MESO code, we need to clarify why it is this way, as you work in the same organization that develops it. We also need evidence (e.g., formal signed letters, etc.) that the relevant department or authority in your organization refuses to give you access to the code and distribute it, including a justification for it (a law or similar). That is, refusing to share the code can not be a simple decision by a person who is not forced by law.
With all these clarifications and information on the data and code, we could study the possibility of granting you an exception to our policy.
At this point, for the fairness of the review process and to avoid wasting time evaluating a manuscript that is facing great difficulties in solving the issues related to compliance with the code, I recommend that the handling topical editor stop inviting reviewers and not make a decision until the situation with the code policy is solved.Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-CEC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on CEC3', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on CEC3', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Aug 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', W. J. Quan, 01 Aug 2024
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 29 Jul 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', W. J. Quan, 29 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on Evaluation of radiation schemes in the CMA-MESO model using high time-resolution radiation measurements in China: I. Long-wave radiation', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2024
This study compares the downward longwave irradiance predicted by the China Meteorological Administration mesoscale model (CMA-MESO) with high-resolution long-term measurements from 42 sites in China. The authors conclude that the model generally agrees with the observations. The correlation between the prediction error and multiple factors (including geolocation, hour of day, cloud amount, etc.) is analyzed. Generally speaking, the dependence of model error on clouds is important and interesting to me. However, the results and the findings presented in current form may not be sufficiently insightful and novel enough to serve as direct feedback to model improvements. In other words, we know that clouds are among the largest contributors to the model uncertainty. Emphasizing it again is not valuable for future model development. It is still necessary to figure out what physical processes specifically contribute to model biases. Approximations made in the radiation scheme? Errors in cloud microphysics? I also have other major concerns regarding the title and the methodology of this study, notably the use of the MODTRAN model. Overall, I recommend a major revision or a possible rejection of this version of the manuscript.
Please see the attached file for specific major concerns and minor suggestions.
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', W. J. Quan, 15 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-74/gmd-2024-74-AC6-supplement.pdf
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', W. J. Quan, 15 Aug 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-74', Xiaohong Liu, 03 Aug 2024
Dear Authors,
According to the policies as outlined by the Chief Editor, please solve the issue of the code compliance. Otherwise, we can't proceed with the following-up steps.
Thanks,
Xiaohong Liu
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-EC1 -
AC5: 'Reply on EC1', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
Dear editor,
Thank you for your reminder.
I have replied the email from the executive editor.
Best regards,
Weijun Quan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-74-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on EC1', W. J. Quan, 05 Aug 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
568 | 219 | 153 | 940 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 568
- PDF: 219
- XML: 153
- Total: 940
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1