Evaluation of Vertical Profiles and Atmospheric Boundary Layer Structure Using the Regional Climate Model CCLM during MOSAiC
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Observations
Quantity | Instrument | Height | Sampling | Data Resolution | Data Provider | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Temperature, Humidity, Wind Speed, and Direction | Radiosonde Vaisala RS41-SGP | 10 m–32 km | 1 s | 3 to 6 h, 5 m vertically | AWI | [17] |
Wind Speed and Direction | Galion wind lidar | 64–2300 m | 5 min | 5 min, 23 m vertically | University of Leeds | [21] |
Radar wind profiler | 200–2000 m | 1 h | 1 h, 20 m vertically | Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility | [23] | |
Temperature | HATPRO microwave radiometer in boundary layer mode | 15 m–10 km | 110 s every 30 min | 30 min, vertically variable (50–500 m) | University of Cologne, Leibniz Institute of Tropospheric Research | [27] |
Integrated Water Vapor | HATPRO microwave radiometer | 1 s | 1 s | University of Cologne, Leibniz Institute of Tropospheric Research | [27] | |
MiRAC-P microwave radiometer | 1 s | 1 s | University of Cologne | [28] |
2.2. Model Data
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation Using Radiosonde Data
3.1.1. Case Studies
3.1.2. Statistics for Winter Months
3.1.3. Statistics for Summer Months
3.2. Evaluation Using Wind Lidar Data
3.3. Evaluation Using Microwave Water Vapor and Temperature Radiometer Data
4. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hansen, J.E.; Ruedy, R.; Sato, M.; Lo, K. Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys. 2010, 48, RG4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rantanen, M.; Karpechko, A.Y.; Lipponen, A.; Nordling, K.; Hyvärinen, O.; Ruosteenoja, K.; Vihma, T.; Laaksonen, A. The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendisch, M.; Brückner, M.; Crewell, S.; Ehrlich, A.; Notholt, J.; Lüpkes, C.; Macke, A.; Burrows, J.P.; Rinke, A.; Quaas, J.; et al. Atmospheric and Surface Processes, and Feedback Mechanisms Determining Arctic Amplification: A Review of First Results and Prospects of the (AC)3 Project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2023, 104, E208–E242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohnemann, S.H.E.; Heinemann, G.; Bromwich, D.H.; Gutjahr, O. Extreme Warming in the Kara Sea and Barents Sea during the Winter Period 2000. J. Clim. 2017, 30, 8913–8927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duvivier, A.K.; Cassano, J.J. Evaluation of WRF Model Resolution on Simulated Mesoscale Winds and Surface Fluxes near Greenland. Mon. Weather. Rev. 2013, 141, 941–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutjahr, O.; Heinemann, G. A model-based comparison of extreme winds in the Arctic and around Greenland. Int. J. Clim. 2018, 38, 5272–5292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sedlar, J.; Tjernström, M.; Rinke, A.; Orr, A.; Cassano, J.; Fettweis, X.; Heinemann, G.; Seefeldt, M.; Solomon, A.; Matthes, H.; et al. Confronting Arctic Troposphere, Clouds, and Surface Energy Budget Representations in Regional Climate Models with Observations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2020, 125, e2019JD031783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, J.; Sato, K.; Rinke, A.; Cassano, J.J.; Fettweis, X.; Heinemann, G.; Matthes, H.; Orr, A.; Phillips, T.; Seefeldt, M.; et al. Clouds and Radiation Processes in Regional Climate Models Evaluated Using Observations Over the Ice-free Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2020, 126, e2020JD033904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tjernström, M.; Svensson, G.; Magnusson, L.; Brooks, I.M.; Prytherch, J.; Vüllers, J.; Young, G. Central Arctic weather forecasting: Confronting the ECMWF IFS with observations from the Arctic Ocean 2018 expedition. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2021, 147, 1278–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinemann, G.; Willmes, S.; Schefczyk, L.; Makshtas, A.; Kustov, V.; Makhotina, I. Observations and Simulations of Meteorological Conditions over Arctic Thick Sea Ice in Late Winter During the Transarktika 2019 Expedition. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinemann, G.; Drüe, C.; Makshtas, A. A Three-Year Climatology of the Wind Field Structure at Cape Baranova (Severnaya Zemlya, Siberia) from SODAR Observations and High-Resolution Regional Climate Model Simulations during YOPP. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shupe, M.D.; Rex, M.; Blomquist, B.; Persson, P.O.G.; Schmale, J.; Uttal, T.; Althausen, D.; Angot, H.; Archer, S.; Bariteau, L.; et al. Overview of the MOSAiC expedition: Atmosphere. Elementa: Sci. Anthr. 2022, 10, 00060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uttal, T.; Curry, J.A.; Mcphee, M.G.; Perovich, D.K.; Moritz, R.E.; Maslanik, J.A.; Guest, P.S.; Stern, H.L.; Moore, J.A.; Turenne, R.; et al. Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2002, 83, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, R.M.; Rinke, A.; Cohen, L.; Hudson, S.R.; Walden, V.P.; Granskog, M.A.; Dorn, W.; Kayser, M.; Maturilli, M. A comparison of the two Arctic atmospheric winter states observed during N-ICE2015 and SHEBA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2017, 122, 5716–5737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyser, K.; Jones, C.G. Modeled and observed clouds during Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2005, 110, D09207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tjernström, M.; Žagar, M.; Svensson, G.; Cassano, J.J.; Pfeifer, S.; Rinke, A.; Wyser, K.; Dethloff, K.; Jones, C.; Semmler, T.; et al. ‘Modelling the Arctic Boundary Layer: An Evaluation of Six Arcmip Regional-Scale Models using Data from the Sheba Project’. Bound. -Layer Meteorol. 2005, 117, 337–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maturilli, M.; Sommer, M.; Holdridge, D.J.; Dahlke, S.; Graeser, J.; Sommerfeld, A.; Jaiser, R.; Deckelmann, H.; Schulz, A. MOSAiC Radiosonde Data (Level 3). 2022. Available online: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.943870 (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Knust, R. Polar Research and Supply Vessel POLARSTERN operated by the Alfred-Wegener-Institute. J. Large-Scale Res. Facil. JLSRF 2017, 3, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaisala. Vaisala Radiosonde RS41 Measurement Performance. Available online: https://www.vaisala.com/sites/default/files/documents/White%20paper%20RS41%20Performance%20B211356EN-A.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
- Dirksen, R.J.; Sommer, M.; Immler, F.J.; Hurst, D.F.; Kivi, R.; Vömel, H. Reference quality upper-air measurements: GRUAN data processing for the Vaisala RS92 radiosonde. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2014, 7, 4463–4490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brooks, I.M. MOSAiC: Wind Profiles from Galion G4000 Lidar Wind Profiler—Version 2. 2022. Available online: https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/c4abd037c7ad4019ad02d0c802e2f27e (accessed on 19 October 2022).
- Newsom, R.K.; Brewer, W.A.; Wilczak, J.M.; Wolfe, D.E.; Oncley, S.P.; Lundquist, J.K. Validating precision estimates in horizontal wind measurements from a Doppler lidar. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2017, 10, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martin, T.; Muradyan, P.; Coulter, R. ARM: 1290-MHz Beam-Steered Radar Wind Profiler: Wind and Moment Averages. 2012. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/dataexplorer/biblio/dataset/1095573 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
- Walbröl, A.; Crewell, S.; Engelmann, R.; Orlandi, E.; Griesche, H.; Radenz, M.; Hofer, J.; Althausen, D.; Maturilli, M.; Ebell, K. Atmospheric temperature, water vapour and liquid water path from two microwave radiometers during MOSAiC. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, C.; Gallagher, M.; Shupe, M.; Persson, O.; Solomon, A.; Blomquist, B.; Brooks, I.; Costa, D.; Gottas, D.; Hutchings, J.; et al. 10-meter (m) meteorological flux tower measurements (Level 1 Raw), Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), central Arctic, October 2019–September 2020. 2021. Available online: https://arcticdata.io/catalog/view/doi%3A10.18739%2FA2VM42Z5F (accessed on 5 November 2021).
- Heinemann, G.; Schefczyk, L.; Willmes, S.; Shupe, M.D. Evaluation of simulations of near-surface variables using the regional climate model CCLM for the MOSAiC winter period. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2022, 10, 00033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebell, K.; Walbröl, A.; Engelmann, R.; Griesche, H.; Radenz, M.; Hofer, J.; Althausen, D. Temperature and Humidity Profiles, Integrated Water Vapour and Liquid Water Path Derived from the HATPRO Microwave Radiometer Onboard the Polarstern during the MOSAiC Expedition. 2022. Available online: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.941389 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
- Walbröl, A.; Orlandi, E.; Crewell, S.; Ebell, K. Integrated Water Vapour Derived from the MiRAC-P Microwave Radiometer Onboard the Polarstern during the MOSAiC Expedition. 2022. Available online: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.941470 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
- Hersbach, H.; Bell, B.; Berrisford, P.; Hirahara, S.; Horányi, A.; Muñoz-Sabater, J.; Nicolas, J.; Peubey, C.; Radu, R.; Schepers, D.; et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2020, 146, 1999–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zentek, R.; Heinemann, G. Verification of the regional atmospheric model CCLM v5.0 with conventional data and lidar measurements in Antarctica. Geosci. Model Dev. 2020, 13, 1809–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heinemann, G. Assessment of Regional Climate Model Simulations of the Katabatic Boundary Layer Structure over Greenland. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreen, G.; Kaleschke, L.; Heygster, G. Sea ice remote sensing using AMSR-E 89-GHz channels. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2008, 113, C02S03. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Rothrock, D.A. Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvi-linear Coordinates. Mon. Wea. Rev. 2003, 131, 845–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frolov, I.E.; Ivanov, V.V.; Filchuk, K.V.; Makshtas, A.P.; Kustov, V.Y.; Mahotina, I.A.; Ivanov, B.V.; Urazgildeeva, A.V.; Syoemin, V.L.; Zimina, O.L.; et al. Transarktika-2019: Winter expedition in the Arctic Ocean on the R/V “Akademik Tryoshnikov”. Arct. Antarct. Res. 2019, 65, 255–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rinke, A.; Dethloff, K.; Cassano, J.J.; Christensen, J.H.; Curry, J.A.; Du, P.; Girard, E.; Haugen, J.-E.; Jacob, D.; Jones, C.G.; et al. Evaluation of an ensemble of Arctic regional climate models: Spatiotemporal fields during the SHEBA year. Clim. Dyn. 2006, 26, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmannsdörfer, L.; Müller, M.; Shupe, M.D.; Rostosky, P. Surface temperature comparison of the Arctic winter MOSAiC observations, ERA5 reanalysis, and MODIS satellite retrieval. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2023, 11, 00085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinemann, G. Regional Climate Model Simulations (CCLM 15km) of Near-Surface Variables for the MOSAiC Winter Period. 2022. Available online: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.944502 (accessed on 24 March 2023).
- Heinemann, G. Regional Climate Model Simulations (CCLM 15km) of Profiles for the MOSAiC Period. 2023. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/7756964 (accessed on 24 March 2023).
- Nixdorf, U.; Dethloff, K.; Rex, M.; Shupe, M.; Sommerfeld, A.; Perovich, D.K.; Nicolaus, M.; Heuzé, C.; Rabe, B.; Loose, B.; et al. MOSAiC Extended Acknowledgement. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5541624 (accessed on 24 March 2023).
Forcing | Vertical/Horizontal Resolutions, Lowest 15 Levels | Run Mode | Sea Ice Concentration (SIC) and Thickness |
---|---|---|---|
ERA5 data for lateral boundary fields | 60 levels, 14 km 5, 16, 31, 48, 70, 96, 127, 164, 206, 254, 310, 372, 443, 522, 609 m | Forecast mode (reinitialized at 18 UTC, 6-h spin-up), hourly data output | AMSR2 and MODIS (SIC), daily data PIOMAS ice thickness, daily data |
C15MOD0 | Temperature °C | Spec. Humidity g/kg | Wind Speed m/s | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layer (m) | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | n |
80–200 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 0.85 | −0.04 | 0.14 | 0.87 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.90 | 2166 |
200–500 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.88 | −0.04 | 0.15 | 0.85 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.91 | 3610 |
500–2000 | −0.1 | 1.3 | 0.93 | −0.03 | 0.18 | 0.86 | −0.1 | 2.3 | 0.91 | 7942 |
2000–5000 | −0.2 | 0.8 | 0.97 | −0.01 | 0.11 | 0.87 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.93 | 7914 |
5000–8000 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.89 | −0.2 | 2.3 | 0.95 | 4302 |
C15 | Temperature °C | Spec. Humidity g/kg | Wind Speed m/s | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layer (m) | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | n |
80–200 | −0.1 | 2.2 | 0.86 | −0.05 | 0.13 | 0.88 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.90 | 2166 |
200–500 | −0.2 | 1.9 | 0.87 | −0.05 | 0.15 | 0.86 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 0.91 | 3610 |
500–2000 | −0.1 | 1.3 | 0.93 | −0.03 | 0.18 | 0.86 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.91 | 7942 |
2000–5000 | −0.2 | 0.8 | 0.97 | −0.01 | 0.11 | 0.87 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.93 | 7914 |
5000–8000 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.89 | −0.2 | 2.3 | 0.95 | 4302 |
C15 | Temperature °C | Spec. Humidity g/kg | Wind Speed m/s | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layer (m) | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | Bias | STDV | Corr | n |
90–200 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 0.72 | 0.02 | 0.36 | 0.84 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.88 | 1905 |
200–500 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.74 | −0.01 | 0.44 | 0.83 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 0.87 | 3175 |
500–2000 | −0.2 | 1.5 | 0.87 | −0.03 | 0.63 | 0.78 | −0.1 | 2.5 | 0.83 | 6985 |
2000–5000 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.95 | −0.03 | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.90 | 6976 |
5000–8000 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.98 | −0.01 | 0.13 | 0.85 | −0.2 | 2.5 | 0.94 | 3800 |
Period | Instrument | Quantity | n | OBS | CCLM | Bias | STDV | Corr. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11-04 | MiRAC-P | IWV in kg/m2 | 4305 | 2.8 | 2.7 | −0.1 | 0.3 | 0.97 |
11-04 | HATPRO | IWV in kg/m2 | 4107 | 3.2 | 2.7 | −0.5 | 0.3 | 0.98 |
05-09 | MiRAC-P | IWV in kg/m2 | 3540 | 12.2 | 12.3 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 0.96 |
05-09 | HATPRO | IWV in kg/m2 | 3539 | 12.1 | 12.3 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.98 |
11-04 | HATPRO | T2 km in °C | 7379 | −21.2 | −20.3 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.97 |
05-09 | HATPRO | T2 km in °C | 6922 | −2.1 | −2.2 | −0.1 | 1.1 | 0.98 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Heinemann, G.; Schefczyk, L.; Zentek, R.; Brooks, I.M.; Dahlke, S.; Walbröl, A. Evaluation of Vertical Profiles and Atmospheric Boundary Layer Structure Using the Regional Climate Model CCLM during MOSAiC. Meteorology 2023, 2, 257-275. https://doi.org/10.3390/meteorology2020016
Heinemann G, Schefczyk L, Zentek R, Brooks IM, Dahlke S, Walbröl A. Evaluation of Vertical Profiles and Atmospheric Boundary Layer Structure Using the Regional Climate Model CCLM during MOSAiC. Meteorology. 2023; 2(2):257-275. https://doi.org/10.3390/meteorology2020016
Chicago/Turabian StyleHeinemann, Günther, Lukas Schefczyk, Rolf Zentek, Ian M. Brooks, Sandro Dahlke, and Andreas Walbröl. 2023. "Evaluation of Vertical Profiles and Atmospheric Boundary Layer Structure Using the Regional Climate Model CCLM during MOSAiC" Meteorology 2, no. 2: 257-275. https://doi.org/10.3390/meteorology2020016