Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:40:14.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Solar radiation, cloudiness and longwave radiation over low-latitude glaciers: implications for mass-balance modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Thomas Mölg
Affiliation:
Tropical Glaciology Group, Department of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria E-mail: [email protected]
Nicolas J. Cullen
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Georg Kaser
Affiliation:
Tropical Glaciology Group, Department of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broadband radiation schemes (parameterizations) are commonly used tools in glacier mass-balance modelling, but their performance at high altitude in the tropics has not been evaluated in detail. Here we take advantage of a high-quality 2 year record of global radiation (G ) and incoming longwave radiation (L ↓) measured on Kersten Glacier, Kilimanjaro, East Africa, at 5873 m a.s.l., to optimize parameterizations of G and L ↓. We show that the two radiation terms can be related by an effective cloud-cover fraction neff , so G or L ↓ can be modelled based on neff derived from measured L ↓ or G, respectively. At neff = 1, G is reduced to 35% of clear-sky G, and L ↓ increases by 45–65% (depending on altitude) relative to clear-sky L ↓. Validation for a 1 year dataset of G and L ↓ obtained at 4850 m on Glaciar Artesonraju, Peruvian Andes, yields a satisfactory performance of the radiation scheme. Whether this performance is acceptable for mass-balance studies of tropical glaciers is explored by applying the data from Glaciar Artesonraju to a physically based mass-balance model, which requires, among others, G and L ↓ as forcing variables. Uncertainties in modelled mass balance introduced by the radiation parameterizations do not exceed those that can be caused by errors in the radiation measurements. Hence, this paper provides a tool for inclusion in spatially distributed mass-balance modelling of tropical glaciers and/or extension of radiation data when only G or L ↓ is measured.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2009

1. Introduction

Amongst the most important climate variables that control short- and long-term mass-balance fluctuations of glaciers at low latitudes (in the inner and outer tropics) are those tied to solar radiation. On the one hand, changes in reflected solar radiation at the glacier surface have been shown to induce significant interannual mass-balance fluctuations (Reference Wagnon, Ribstein, Francou and SicartWagnon and others, 2001; Reference Möolg and HardyMölg and Hardy, 2004). In this case, the net shortwave radiation term in the glacier energy balance is affected by albedo. On the other hand, changes in solar radiation receipt in response to cloud-cover changes may lead to a long-term change in glacier mass budget and therefore glacier extent (Reference KrussKruss, 1983; Reference Kaser and GeorgesKaser and Georges, 1997; Reference Mölg, Georges and KaserMölg and others, 2003a). When this happens, the incoming shortwave radiation term in the glacier’s energy budget changes substantially.

Low-latitude (tropical) glaciers are located in climate zones where (1) the diurnal cycle is greater (in terms of amplitude) than the annual cycle of air temperature, (2) the sun reaches a solar elevation of 90° and (3) the succession of dry and wet seasons causes the seasonality in the course of the year (Reference Kaser and OsmastonKaser and Osmaston, 2002). Since low-latitude glaciers occur at high altitude in the tropical mid-troposphere (a region with a lack of climate data), they are particularly valuable indicators of climate change (e.g. Reference Lemke and SolomonLemke and others, 2007). To understand and correctly interpret the mass-balance-climate-forcing link, process-based studies resolving the energy balance are necessary. Reference HastenrathHastenrath (1978, Reference Hastenrath1984) pioneered such studies with measurements in the Peruvian Andes and on Mount Kenya, East Africa. Over recent years, extensive field experiments and associated mass- and energy-balance modelling have expanded. Examples of high-altitude research sites in the tropics come from Peru (Reference JuenJuen, 2006), Bolivia (Reference Wagnon, Ribstein, Francou and SicartWagnon and others, 2001, Reference Wagnon, Sicart, Berthier and Chazarin2003), Ecuador (Reference Favier, Wagnon, Chazarin, Maisincho and CoudrainFavier and others, 2004) and Kilimanjaro, Tanzania (Reference Möolg and HardyMölg and Hardy, 2004; Reference Cullen, Mölg, Kaser, Steffen and HardyCullen and others, 2007; Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008). Due to the importance of solar radiation, as well as atmospheric longwave radiation which is the other major energy flux to glacier surfaces (Reference OhmuraOhmura, 2001), the measurement of radiation has been a central effort in the field programmes described above (see section 2.1).

Alternatively, broadband radiation schemes provide an effective, and nowadays common, tool to quantify radiation at the Earth surface (e.g. Reference Niemelä, Raisanen and SavijärviNiemelä and others, 2001a,Reference Niemelä, Raisanen and Savijärvib). Their performance in the tropical mid-troposphere, however, has been poorly investigated so far. We address this issue in the context of glacier mass-balance modelling. The specific goals are to (1) optimize a broadband solar radiation model for the conditions on Kilimanjaro and deduce from it a variable that describes the impact of clouds, (2) examine the relation between this cloud variable and atmospheric longwave radiation, which serves to optimize a broadband longwave radiation model for the same site, and (3) validate the radiation scheme (and test it in a mass-balance model framework) for a different site in the Peruvian Andes.

2. Methods

This section describes available data and the models. Optimization of parameters in the radiation scheme is carried out on a 2 year dataset from Kilimanjaro (February 2005-January 2007), while the validation data from the Peruvian Andes comprise a 1 year dataset (March 2004-March 2005). Correlation coefficient (r) and root-mean-square difference (RMSD) serve as the most important measures for both optimization and validation (e.g. Reference Oerlemans and KnapOerlemans and Knap, 1998).

2.1. Measurements

To investigate glacier–climate interactions on Kilimanjaro, we have been operating two automatic weather stations (AWSs) on the massif’s central peak Kibo since February 2005, and a third AWS has been operated by the University of Massachusetts since February 2000 (Fig. 1). AWS3, which is located in the upper part of the steep Kersten Glacier at 5873 m a.s.l., provides all the necessary data to run physically based mass-balance models (Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008). Two-year records without any gaps are now available from this station for half-hourly global radiation (incoming shortwave radiation with respect to a horizontal reference surface), albedo, incoming and outgoing longwave radiation, air temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, surface height change, and barometric air pressure. As for the entire Kilimanjaro region, the climate on Kibo is characterized by hygric seasonality, with wet seasons from March to May (MAM) and October to December (OND). A pronounced dry season occurs from June to September, and a moderately dry season in January and February. Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others (2008) present the weather conditions recorded at AWS3, as well as instrument details. Mean air temperature is −7°C and hardly varies on a monthly scale, while the time series of air humidity and precipitation (snowfall) reflect the hygric seasonality. A Kipp & Zonen CNR1 net radiometer installed horizontally at (initially) 1.64 m above the glacier surface (Fig. 1) measures separately the downward fluxes of (1) solar radiation in the spectral (shortwave) range 0.3–2.8 μm, and (2) longwave radiation in the range 5–50 μm. The nominal accuracy of the sensors is ±10% on daily totals. Experience in cold environments has shown that the actual accuracy is higher and remains within ±5% (Reference Van den Broeke, van As, Reijmer and van de WalVan den Broeke and others, 2004; Reference Van As, van den Broeke, Reijmer and van de WalVan As and others, 2005), but occasional errors above 10% have recently been reported for a mid-latitude site (Reference Michel, Philipona, Ruckstuhl, Vogt and VuilleumierMichel and others, 2008). Figure 2 depicts the time series of global radiation between February 2005 and January 2007, the dataset on which this study proceeds. Measurements clearly reflect the variations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) extraterrestrial solar radiation. The period around December 2005–January 2006 features a few daily means that are almost as high as TOA values. A possible explanation of this is the anomalously dry conditions that coincided with this period (Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008), but the definite reason is not clear. However, this anomaly in global radiation was also recorded at AWS1 (Fig. 1), so is unlikely to be related to an instrument error.

Fig. 1. Glacier extent on Kilimanjaro’s central part Kibo in 2003 (Reference Cullen, Mölg, Kaser, Hussein, Steffen and HardyCullen and others, 2006) and the location of AWSs and vertical ice walls (UTM zone 37S projection; contours at 200 m spacing). Africa’s highest point, Uhuru Peak (5895 m a.s.l.), the eruption cone (Reusch Crater) and Kersten Glacier (KG) are also indicated. The photo shows AWS3 (5873 m a.s.l.) in February 2005, with the CNR1 net radiometer circled (photo: N.J. Cullen).

Fig. 2. Daily means of global radiation at AWS3 and TOA radiation (100% and 85%) over Kilimanjaro between 9 February 2005 and 9 January 2007.

A set-up similar to AWS3 on Kibo has been maintained at an AWS on the tongue of Glaciar Artesonraju (4850 m a.s.l.), Peruvian Andes, since March 2004 by the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), France, in cooperation with the Tropical Glaciology Group at Innsbruck. While Kibo stands very close to the equator (Fig. 1), Glaciar Artesonraju is located further away from it at ∼9° S (for maps see Reference JuenJuen, 2006). At this site, there is only one core wet season (January–March) and one core dry season (June–August). The remaining months are regarded as transitional months. Mean air temperature is close to freezing point and shows little month-to-month variability. Reference JuenJuen (2006) documents in detail the instrument specifications of, and weather conditions at, the AWS on Glaciar Artesonraju. Measurements from this station are available from 25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 for the validation part of this study. Importantly, radiative fluxes are measured with the same sensors as at AWS3 on Kibo (see above). The characteristics of the local climate are summarized in Table 1. Briefly, the warmer and more humid environment at the Artesonraju AWS (ablation area), compared to the Kilimanjaro summit region (accumulation area), leads to substantially lower global radiation, G, but higher incoming longwave radiation, L ↓, and to a less variable moisture climate (discussed further in section 3.3).

Table 1. Mean values of radiative fluxes, screen-level air temperature and humidity, and horizontal wind speed at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro (9 February 2005 to 9 January 2007) and at the AWS on Glaciar Artesonraju (25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005). Values in parentheses give the standard deviation of daily means, and percentiles refer to daily incoming longwave radiation (discussed in section 3.3)

TOA outgoing longwave radiation (TOA-OLR) from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite (Reference Liebmann and SmithLiebmann and Smith, 1996), available at 2.5° horizontal resolution, is also used for the gridcell containing Kilimanjaro (centered at 2.5° S, 37.5° E). In the tropics, TOA-OLR is a good indicator of (and negatively correlated with) convective cloudiness and precipitation (e.g. Reference Garreaud, Vuille and ClementGarreaud and others, 2003), and therefore helps assess the cloud variable deduced from the solar radiation model (see section 3.2).

2.2. The solar radiation model

Previous solar radiation modelling for the three glacierized mountains of East Africa (Mount Kenya (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1984), Rwenzori (Reference Mölg, Georges and KaserMölg and others, 2003a) and Kilimanjaro (Reference Hastenrath and GreischarHastenrath and Greischar, 1997; Reference Mölg, Hardy and KaserMölg and others, 2003b)) explored the spatial pattern of incident solar radiation qualitatively, but did (or could) not validate simulated global radiation quantitatively. The basic equation to calculate G in this paper reads as follows (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1984):

(1)

where S cs is the clear-sky direct solar radiation, D cs clear-sky diffuse solar radiation, k a constant, and n eff the ‘effective’ cloud-cover fraction (0–1). The impacts of typical cloud properties (e.g. height, type, optical thickness) on solar radiation are parameterized by k, which therefore varies with geographical latitude (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1984). Still, since k in the real world is not constant temporally, n eff also parameterizes such impacts partly and the condition ‘effective’ expresses the difference to true cloud-cover fraction.

Clear-sky direct solar radiation is computed by:

(2)

where S 0 is the solar constant (1367 W m−2), E 0 the eccentricity correction factor, h the solar elevation above the plane of the horizon, and τ cs the clear-sky transmissivity of the atmosphere for the (broadband) direct sun beam. If S cs is not computed for a horizontal reference surface (e.g. for a gridcell in a digital terrain model), sin h is replaced by cos ζ p, where ζ p is the zenith angle of the sun with respect to an arbitrarily oriented and inclined plane (Reference Mölg, Georges and KaserMölg and others, 2003a). We refer to Reference IqbalIqbal (1983) for calculation of E 0, ζ p and h, a summary of which is provided by Reference Mölg, Georges and KaserMölg and others (2003a). τ cs is the product of four transmission coefficients (e.g. Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans, 2002) that describe extinction of solar radiation due to Rayleigh scattering (τ r), absorption by gases (τ g), absorption by water vapour (τ w) and attenuation (absorption and scattering) by aerosols (τ a). The terms τ r and τ g are functions of optical air mass and air pressure, while τ w can be estimated from optical air mass and precipitable water (a function of screen-level temperature and humidity (Reference PrataPrata, 1996)). Expressions of the transmissivities are taken from Reference IqbalIqbal (1983) and Reference Meyers and DaleMeyers and Dale (1983), with attenuation by aerosols given by:

(3)

where m is the optical air mass, and x is an altitude-dependent constant which decreases downslope as the aerosol concentration increases. Here the relation proposed by Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans (2002) for high mountains is employed. Their linear fit predicts x = 0.88 at sea level and x = 1 above 4925 m a.s.l. (∼565 hPa), so τ a = 1 at the Kibo AWS3. This is consistent with the general vertical pattern of aerosol optical depth in the tropical Andes, which approximates zero in the 500–600 hPa region (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1997). Also, Reference HastenrathHastenrath (1984) concluded from solar radiation measurements on Mount Kenya (∼590 hPa) that turbidity by aerosols is negligible.

Diffuse solar radiation in clear sky is parameterized in one term, derived from Reference IqbalIqbal (1983) who resolves D cs in Rayleigh-scattered, aerosol-scattered and sky-reflected diffuse radiation:

(4)

Besides the variables that are already involved in the computation of S cs above, τ aa is the transmissivity due to absorption of solar radiation by aerosols (a function of m and τ a (Reference IqbalIqbal, 1983)), p is local air pressure (hPa) and p 0 is 1013.25 hPa. K dif is a constant which incorporates the forward scatterance of Rayleigh and aerosol scattering, and ranges between 0.4 (for Rayleigh scattering) and 0.66 (for aerosol scattering) in Reference IqbalIqbal’s (1983) expressions.

We first model clear-sky global radiation (S cs + D cs) and optimize K dif for a selection of clear-sky days from the AWS3 data using the following three criteria: (1) Mean daily G must be at least 85% of TOA radiation, which captures the peak values in daily G (Fig. 2). (2) Daily net longwave radiation must be smaller than its 10% percentile value. This criterion follows an approach used by Reference Van den Broeke, Reijmer, van As and BootVan den Broeke and others (2006), who showed that clear skies coincide with highly negative values of net longwave radiation at different elevations in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica. Energy balances in Antarctica (during summer) are, in turn, very similar to those on high-altitude tropical glaciers (Reference Wagnon, Sicart, Berthier and ChazarinWagnon and others, 2003). (3) Daily relative humidity (RH) must be <35%, which appears to be a useful threshold as identified in a scatter plot of daily G versus daily RH (not shown). Of 700 days, 59 pass this test for the optimization of K dif.

All-sky G is modelled by optimizing the product kn eff for the entire global radiation record from AWS3 (Fig. 2), i.e. for 700 days. Hence, different n eff series are produced from Equation (1) for k values between 0.40 and 0.80 (by inserting measured G on the left-hand side and resetting resultant n eff <0 or n eff >1 to n eff = 0 and n eff = 1, respectively), and the optimal pair (k and its n eff series) is determined. Reference HastenrathHastenrath (1984) suggests k = 0.65 for the equator (i.e. G under a completely overcast sky is 35% of clear-sky G), which he adopted from the literature. A big advantage of having AWS3 for the optimization procedure is its location very close to Kibo’s peak (Fig. 1), which almost completely eliminates shading of the CNR1 sensors by surrounding terrain (discussed further in section 3.1).

2.3. The longwave radiation model

Based on the Stefan–Boltzmann law, it is well known that incoming longwave radiation from the atmosphere (L ↓) depends on atmospheric emissivity ( A), the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (σ) and absolute temperature of the air (T). For L ↓ in clear sky (expressed below by the subscript ‘clear’ ) the relation may be written as

(5)

The presence of clouds increases the atmospheric emissivity by a cloud factor F cl ≥ 1, which is thus positively correlated with n eff (Reference Niemelä, Raisanen and SavijärviNiemelä and others, 2001a). Hence, for all-sky conditions ε A = ε A−clear Fcl and L ↓= Lclear F cl, and therefore F cl = L↓ =Lclear (e.g. Reference Sicart, Pomeroy, Essery and BewleySicart and others, 2006). For the clear-sky emissivity, Reference BrutsaertBrutsaert (1975) gives an expression (with parameters P 1 = 1.24 and P 2 = 7) based on water-vapour pressure, e (hPa), and T (K), which both refer to screen level:

(6)

To formulate an optimal longwave radiation model for L ↓ data from AWS3 on Kibo, the relation between n eff (obtained from the optimized solar radiation model) and F cl is examined first. F cl is obtained by dividing measured all-sky L↓ by Lclear calculated from Equations (5) and (6) (using measured e and T). This is followed by an optimization of the clear-sky model (parameters P 1 and P 2) over the 59 clear-sky days defined in section 2.2, and the determination of an optimal function F cl(n eff) over the entire 700 day period (section 3.3).

2.4. The mass-balance model

A detailed description of the mass-balance model is found in Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others (2008) who employed it to simulate mass-balance response at AWS3 to climate fluctuations. The model computes the specific mass balance as the sum of snowfall, surface deposition, internal accumulation (refreezing of meltwater in snow), meltwater runoff and surface sublimation. This approach is based on the surface energy balance (SEB) of a glacier in the following form:

(7)

where S ↓ is incoming shortwave radiation (equivalent to G for a horizontal glacier surface), α is surface albedo, L ↓ and L ↑ are incoming and outgoing longwave radiation, QS and QL are the turbulent fluxes of sensible and latent heat, respectively, QC is the conductive heat flux in the subsurface, and QPS is the energy flux from shortwave radiation penetrating to the subsurface. The sum of these fluxes yields a resulting net flux F which represents the latent heat flux of melting if glacier surface temperature (T sfc) reaches 273.15 K. The model’s SEB module interacts through T sfc with the subsurface module, which solves for the englacial temperature on a numerical grid (see Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008, fig. 4). The sign convention used is that a flux is positive (negative) when it induces a heat gain (sink) at the surface.

As a minimum input, the model requires air temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed and precipitation rate. S ↓, α, L↓ and L ↑ (a function of T sfc) can be measured input or, optionally, are parameterized by the model. Here, the model is run in hourly time-steps for the 1 year dataset from Glaciar Artesonraju. S ↓ and L ↓ are supplied by measurements for the reference run, but are generated from the optimized radiation scheme in sensitivity runs. This adds to the validation part of this study (section 3.4), to explore whether the proposed radiation scheme has skill for mass-balance modelling of tropical glaciers other than those found on Kilimanjaro (section 3.5).

The set-up of the mass-balance model is as in Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others (2008), except for the turbulent heat-flux computation (see Reference Möolg and HardyMölg and Hardy, 2004) where roughness lengths are set to 0.3 × 10−3 m (Reference JuenJuen, 2006), and for the constant bottom ice temperature (at 3 m depth) which is set to melting point because the ice at the AWS site on Glaciar Artesonraju is temperate. In addition, the precipitation rate is derived from the station Llupa (3800 m a.s.l.) and corrected for the AWS altitude (4850 m a.s.l.) with a vertical gradient of 0.035 mm m−1 month−1 (Reference JuenJuen, 2006). Local slope at the AWS is negligible, so S ↓ = G.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Solar radiation model: optimization

For the 59 clear-sky days, the optimization of K dif yields 0.66. Equation (4) does not explicitly account for diffuse radiation reflected from the sky, so it seems reasonable that the value of the optimal K dif is at the upper threshold and not in the centre of the commonly used K dif range (see section 2.2). The outcome of modelling clear-sky G is shown in Figure 3. The largest daily deviation (20 W m−2) only represents 5.4% of measured G, which is within the measurement uncertainty. The initial lower cluster of clear-sky G (dots and crosses within the dashed rectangle in Fig. 3a) exhibits a positive model bias. Closer examination showed that this is due to a high overestimation of G by the model (factor >4) in the hour 0700–0800 local time (LT) on 9 of the 59 days (Fig. 3b). These nine hours showed almost identical characteristics of sun elevation (11–12°), illumination direction (68–74° from north) and time of year (day 200–226), which suggests strongly that the sensor is shaded in this very narrow range of conditions. This does not have a large impact over the entire period (700 days), but the model performance for clear-sky conditions may be better assessed if modelled G is set equal to modelled D cs in these nine hours. Assuming shading for the nine hours in question removes the systematic model error, and the lower cluster spreads around the 1 : 1 line (dots and open circles within the dashed rectangle in Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3. Measured and modelled clear-sky global radiation for (a) daily means (N = 59 days) and (b) hourly means (N = 1416 hours) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Different symbols for the lower cluster in the daily plot (dashed rectangle) are explained further in the text.

For all-sky conditions, the optimal performance in fact occurs for an n eff that is solved from k = 0.65 (daily r = 0.99; RMSD = 7.0 W m−2), so the original value adopted from the literature (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1984) can be maintained. The derived cloud pattern is depicted in Figure 4, with a mean n eff of only 0.2. The major peaks nicely coincide with the wet seasons MAM 2005, MAM 2006 and OND 2006. Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others (2008) note that the OND wet season in 2005 was anomalously dry, which is corroborated by the pattern of n eff. Figure 4 also shows the monthly effective transmissivity (τ eff) for shortwave radiation (measured G/TOA radiation). Given the relatively short path of the solar beam through the tropical atmosphere and low n eff over Kibo, τ eff is generally high. On a typical Alpine glacier, τ eff is considerably lower and lies in the range 0.35–0.59 (Reference Oerlemans and KnapOerlemans and Knap, 1998). Values on Kibo (0.67–0.83) resemble much more those in the atmosphere over East Antarctica, where Reference Van den Broeke, Reijmer, van As and BootVan den Broeke and others (2006) report a range of 0.64–0.79. The minima of τ eff on Kibo correspond to the wet seasons when n eff is relatively high (Fig. 4), with the exception again of OND 2005.

Fig. 4. Daily estimates of the daytime effective cloud-cover fraction n eff (grey bars, with the bold line plot showing the 30 day running average) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro between 9 February 2005 and 9 January 2007. The point-symbol plot gives the monthly effective transmissivity of the atmosphere for shortwave radiation, τ eff.

The optimized K dif and k also allow an estimation of diffuse solar radiation to be made, which reaches a maximum of 35% of potential G during overcast conditions (Equation (1)). ‘Potential’ refers to a clear sky and a non-obstructed direct sunbeam. In the clear-sky run (Fig. 3), D cs only amounts to 4.6% of potential G. Since the optimization for clear-sky conditions only concerns D cs (through K dif) our results suggest that parameters from the literature (for τ cs) appear to work adequately (Fig. 3), which is not unexpected for the highly transparent atmosphere over Kibo in clear sky. The small contribution of D cs to potential G agrees with high-altitude measurements by Reference HastenrathHastenrath (1978, Reference Hastenrath1984) on Quelccaya ice cap, Peruvian Andes, and Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya. Hastenrath found that D cs accounts for only 2–10% of potential G. Specifically, for nearby Mount Kenya (∼590 hPa) he reports a range of 5–10%; thus, the smaller value on the more elevated Kibo (∼500 hPa) seems consistent. For intermediate n eff, a linear relation may be used to approximate the amount of diffuse solar radiation (Reference HastenrathHastenrath, 1984), here 4.6% of potential G at n eff = 0 and 35% at n eff = 1. Mean measured G on Kibo over 2 years (333 W m−2) would, on average, therefore consist of 286 W m−2 direct and 47 W m−2 diffuse solar radiation.

3.2. Assessing the relation between n eff and longwave radiation

Based on theory and measurements around the world (Reference Niemelä, Raisanen and SavijärviNiemelä and others, 2001a), clouds increase L↓ as described by the cloud factor F cl (see section 2.3). Figure 5 shows the scatter plot of F cl versus n eff. Only the hours 1100–1500 h LT are considered, since small errors in modelled clear-sky G (or measured G) at relatively low solar elevations may lead to a large error in n eff as defined by Equation (1). This is apparent on some dry days when n eff is close to zero the whole day but >0.7 in the early morning and in the hour before sunset. The chosen time window helps reduce the scatter by restricting observations to relatively high solar elevations (>49°). Figure 5 demonstrates the expected positive correlation between F cl and n eff. The scatter plot, however, indicates a polynomial shape for the relation, which implies the sensitivity of L ↓ to n eff decreases at greater n eff. Plotting the relation for daily means (not shown) suggests a somewhat stronger linearity than the hourly values in Figure 5, but a polynomial fit leads to a higher r 2 than a linear fit for the daily data as well. A similar non-linear relation has been shown by Reference Sicart, Pomeroy, Essery and BewleySicart and others (2006) in their study from Yukon, Canada, at ∼60° N, where an overcast sky also amplifies longwave emissivity by roughly 50% compared to a clear sky (Reference Sicart, Pomeroy, Essery and BewleySicart and others, 2006, fig. 4).

Fig. 5. Cloud factor F cl (all-sky divided by clear-sky incoming longwave radiation) versus the effective cloud-cover fraction n eff derived from the solar radiation model (Equation (1)) between 1100 and 1500 h LT (N = 2800 hours) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Clear-sky incoming longwave radiation is calculated after the model of Reference BrutsaertBrutsaert (1975), while all-sky incoming longwave radiation is a measurement. The black curve shows the polynomial fit.

On Kibo, the decreasing slope in the F cln eff relation at n eff >0.5 (Fig. 5) is probably linked to the observed negative correlation between T and L ↓ for relatively high water-vapour pressures (Fig. 6) and, thus, counteracts the factor T 4 in the general formulation of L ↓ (section 2.3). High e presumably coincides with cloud coverage most of the time, and the atmospheric emissivity therefore becomes increasingly a function of the number of hydrometeors per volume air, a rise in which is favoured by low T. The example of e from 3.5 to 3.6 hPa (Fig. 6b) supports this interpretation by the high concentration of data points at T ≈ 267.5 K and L↓ ≈ 290 W m−2, which indicates radiative equilibrium between the local atmosphere and surface boundary layer (σ × 267.5 K = 290 W m−2), an unlikely situation if conditions are not near-overcast. The analysis (Fig. 6) is also in line with the somewhat stronger linearity in the daily F cln eff relation (see above), since the hours 1100–1500 h LT (Fig. 5) feature a greater fraction of high water-vapour pressures than the entire day.

Fig. 6. (a) Correlation coefficient between screen-level air temperature T and incoming longwave radiation L ↓ for water-vapour pressure (e) bins between 0.1 and 4 hPa (bin size is 0.1 hPa; p values based on t test) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Bins of N < 100 hours are not shown. (b) Two bins are chosen for the scatter plot L ↓ versus T, one characteristic of low e and one of relatively high e.

For low-latitude glaciers, the only attempt to relate longwave radiation and cloudiness (to our knowledge) was made for Glaciar Antizana, Ecuador, by Reference Francou, Vuille, Favier and CáceresFrancou and others (2004). They define a cloud index as 1.3–1.4τ eff, and illustrate a clear correlation to the TOA-OLR on a monthly scale (r = −0.68). As shown above, τ eff and n eff strongly correlate (Fig. 4), so are equal measures of the cloud impact on clear-sky solar radiation. Our n eff correlates with TOA-OLR over Kilimanjaro at r = −0.72 on a monthly basis, which is very similar to Antizana conditions. These results, along with the similarity of the F cln eff relation (Fig. 5) to that in other cold regions (Reference Sicart, Pomeroy, Essery and BewleySicart and others, 2006), corroborate that n eff derived from Equation (1) is a useful term to characterize cloudiness on tropical mountains.

3.3. Longwave radiation model: optimization

Brutsaert’s formula, based on the 59 selected clear-sky days, performs reasonably using the original parameters P 1 = 1.24 and P 2 = 7 (RMSD is 19.9 W m−2 between daily measured and modelled Lclear). An optimal performance (RMSD = 6.6 W m−2) is reached if P 1 = 1.24 and P 2 = 6, which we therefore propose for conditions over tropical glaciers. The new P 2 value conforms to Reference BrutsaertBrutsaert’s (1975) suggestion for climates of low water-vapor amounts, which is met in these conditions. This leads to the following relation between incoming longwave radiation, F cl and n eff on Kibo (with parameters fitted to the 2800 hours shown in Fig. 5):

(8)

To make this relation applicable to lower-lying tropical glaciers as well, we propose an altitude correction to the above equation, because the relative range of moisture variability in the tropical atmosphere (compared to the mean state) seems to increase with altitude (and therefore affects the range of the ratio L ↓/Lclear as discussed below):

Reference Duane, Pepin, Losleben and HardyDuane and others (2008) show from measurements of air humidity on the slopes of Kilimanjaro between 1890 and 5800 m a.s.l. that water-vapour pressure decreases substantially upslope, but its standard deviation remains almost unchanged over the whole altitude range.

Reference Garreaud, Vuille and ClementGarreaud and others (2003) point out that moisture availability at lower elevations on the Altiplano is rather constant, but varies substantially at 600 hPa because of the zonal winds between that and higher atmospheric layers.

Reference Kaser and OsmastonKaser and Osmaston (2002) observe (as we also observed during our field campaigns) that clouds are frequently blocked and dissolve just below the summit plateau on Kibo (in the region of the 5600 m contour; Fig. 1) during the dry season, and the classical concept of the diurnal cycle of cloudiness in tropical mountains with cloud formation in the early afternoon (Reference Troll and WienTroll and Wien, 1949) only applies to the regions below roughly 5600 m a.s.l.

Table 1 complements these facts by showing that measured L↓ at 5873 m a.s.l. on Kilimanjaro (502 hPa) shows an even greater absolute range than at the 1000 m lower-lying measurement site on Glaciar Artesonraju (570 hPa). Since both datasets cover at least one complete annual cycle, it is very likely that the 5% percentile reflects clear-sky days, and the 95% percentile overcast days. This implies that the range of F cl from n eff = 0 to n eff = 1 decreases with decreasing altitude. An altitude-dependent form of Equation (8) then reads

(9)

where p is the local air pressure at the measurement site (in hPa), and 502 hPa is the (reference) mean air pressure at AWS3 on Kibo. Since Equation (9) can be solved iteratively for n eff, all-sky G can now be parameterized through n eff derived from L ↓ measurements or, in the opposite direction, L↓ can be parameterized (for daytime) by n eff obtained from measured G (Equation (1)), provided that screen-level measurements of T and e are available.

3.4. Validation for a different site: Glaciar Artesonraju

Here we maintain the model parameters optimized for Kilimanjaro data (K dif = 0.66; k = 0.65; P 2 = 6; Equation (9) for F cl) and formulations used from the literature (Reference BrutsaertBrutsaert (1975) for P 1; Reference IqbalIqbal (1983), Reference Meyers and DaleMeyers and Dale (1983) and Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans (2002) for τ cs and D cs) but apply the radiation scheme to the 1 year dataset from the AWS on Glaciar Artesonraju (section 2.1). Shading of this AWS by the surrounding relief only occurs, if at all, in the early-morning hours (Reference JuenJuen, 2006), so has a negligible impact on modelling G.

Table 2 presents the statistical validation for both G and L↓ parameterizations, and as a comparison the same statistics are shown for the optimization dataset from Kilimanjaro. For L ↓, only the daytime validation makes sense (when n eff can be derived from measured G), and how to treat n eff during night in that case should be an individual decision (e.g. linear interpolation between evening and morning (Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans, 2002) or by assuming mean n eff of the preceding afternoon (Reference Lhomme, Vacher and RocheteauLhomme and others, 2007)). RMSD in the order of 100 W m−2 for G appears large at first glance, perhaps since similar validations are usually given for daily means in the literature (e.g. Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans, 2002), which greatly reduces the RMSD (e.g. Fig. 3). For hourly values, however, such a RMSD is common in all-sky solar radiation schemes (cf. Reference Niemelä, Raisanen and SavijärviNiemelä and others, 2001b, table 2). Further, a high hourly RMSD is favoured for our tropical sites where G in the early afternoon regularly exceeds 1000 W m−2. For L↓, the performance strongly resembles that of other broadband schemes in all-sky conditions, where the explained variance drops from ∼75% to 55% between optimization and validation data that refer to different sites but a similar climate zone (cf. Reference Lhomme, Vacher and RocheteauLhomme and others, 2007, table 3). Hence, there is no indication that the radiation scheme developed in this paper underperforms those for other environments.

Table 2. Coefficient of determination and RMSD (W m−2) between hourly parameterized and measured radiation terms at the Artesonraju AWS over 25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 (validation dataset). For L ↓, only hours from 0800 to 1700 h LT are considered. The bias is parameterized minus measured average value (W m−2). The same is shown for the optimization dataset from AWS3 on Kilimanjaro over 9 February 2005 to 9 January 2007

Figure 7 shows the scatter plots associated with Table 2 for the validation site. The only sign of a systematic discrepancy appears for L ↓ > 320 W m−2, where model values are lower than those obtained from measurements. The mean difference of 25 W m−2 is still smaller than the nominal accuracy of the sensor for this data range (33 W m−2). From the model’s perspective, the mean n eff for these cases (0.75) appears rather low for such high L ↓. On the other hand, CNR1 measurements may overestimate the actual L ↓ if riming occurs (Reference Van den Broeke, van As, Reijmer and van de WalVan den Broeke and others, 2004). On tropical glaciers, with little variation in daily air temperatures and strong solar irradiance year-round (Table 1), this is most likely on moist days with high L↓. The broad scatter of measurements for modelled G around 150 W m−2 (Fig. 7a) also indicates that the mostly lower model values could originate from a too high n eff due to a too high L↓ measurement. Nine of the ten days with modelled G <160 W m−2 but measured G >200 W m−2 indeed show measured daytime L ↓ >320 W m−2 as well. In summary, though, Table 2 and Figure 7 demonstrate that the model parameters optimized for Kilimanjaro are transferable to other tropical mountain sites.

Fig. 7. Measured and modelled mean daily global radiation G (a) and daytime incoming longwave radiation L ↓ (b) at the Artesonraju AWS over 25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 (validation dataset). Daily means are calculated from the hourly values evaluated in Table 2.

3.5. Implications for mass-balance modelling

Here we consider the radiation scheme’s suitability for incorporation into mass-balance modelling at the validation site. This deserves exploration, in order to highlight the importance of correctly simulating the diurnal cycle of incoming radiation. Periods of strong ablation on tropical glaciers depend mainly on short early-afternoon periods – scattered over the whole year – when melting may contribute to mass loss in addition to the more-or-less continuous sublimation (Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008). This contrasts with extratropical mountain glaciers, where strong ablation is confined to the summer seasons when the surface is almost constantly at melting point (and, thus, a correct simulation of daily radiation may be sufficient).

Figure 8a presents the application of the AWS data to the mass-balance model, where all required input data (section 2.4) are measurements (reference run). There is very good agreement between the measurements and model in terms of the net specific mass balance (b n). The most important mass fluxes over the 372 days at this site are surface melt (6.75 m w.e.), solid precipitation (1.15 m w.e.) and surface sublimation (0.15 m w.e.). Details about the microclimate in the ablation area, where the AWS is situated, can be found in Reference JuenJuen (2006).

Fig. 8. Measured and modelled specific mass balance at the Artesonraju AWS between 25 March 2004 and 31 March 2005, using (a) measured global radiation G and measured incoming longwave radiation L ↓ as model input; (b) parameterized G (case 1 in Table 2) and measured L ↓; and (c) measured G and parameterized L ↓ (case 2 in Table 2). The grey envelopes illustrate the range of the reference run when (center) measured G or (right) measured L ↓ is offset by ±5%.

Figure 8b and c present two further runs, which use parameterized G or L ↓ as input obtained from the radiation scheme. For the L ↓ parameterization, night-time n eff (not deducible from G measurements) is interpolated linearly between n eff in the sunset and sunrise hours, as in Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans (2002). There are minor positive but no significant deviations from the reference run, evaluated with respect to the effects that a 5% measurement error in G or L ↓ would have (i.e. the black curve favours the upper part of the shaded error margin in Figure 8). Interestingly, using parameterized G with a positive bias (Table 2) also leads to this positive deviation, while one could anticipate a negative deviation because of the higher energy supply to the glacier. The positive bias in G (Table 2), however, results mainly from an overestimation of G in the morning and late afternoon, while G is underestimated in the early afternoon when melting takes place – which connects to the opening discussion of this section. This suggests increased sensitivity of modelled b n to a shortening of sub-daily melt periods, since diurnal variations in the scheme’s performance (under-versus overestimation of measurements) have less time to compensate each other. Again, the differences in modelled b n introduced by the radiation parameterizations (Fig. 8) are small and, in a physically based mass-balance model which treats feedback processes, are most probably concealed by errors from other sensitive parameterizations like albedo, turbulent heat transfer and surface temperature schemes (e.g. Reference Mölg, Cullen, Hardy, Kaser and KlokMölg and others, 2008; Reference Reijmer and HockReijmer and Hock, 2008). Still, the length and timing of melt periods of a particular tropical glacier (site) should be considered as critical if the radiation scheme is to be adopted.

4. Conclusions

A broadband radiation scheme optimized with a 2 year dataset from Kersten Glacier (5873 m a.s.l.) allows the hourly computation of global radiation (G) and incoming longwave radiation (L ↓) for high-altitude tropical conditions. The key aspect of the scheme is the connection of the two radiation terms by an effective cloud-cover fraction. Hence, if only one radiation term is measured, the second term can be estimated from the radiation scheme, provided that screen-level measurements of air temperature and humidity are available. This works reasonably well for an independent dataset from Glaciar Artesonraju (4850 m a.s.l.).

Further applications may be (1) filling data gaps in radiation measurements, which are unavoidable in the harsh weather conditions on tropical glaciers (e.g. Reference Möolg and HardyMölg and Hardy, 2004), (2) correcting data affected by measurement errors (e.g. by the low cosine response of the instruments (Reference Van As, van den Broeke, Reijmer and van de WalVan As and others, 2005)), and (3) incorporation into a spatially distributed (two-dimensional (2-D)) mass- and energy-balance model of tropical glaciers, as done for extratropical mountain glaciers (e.g. Reference Klok and OerlemansKlok and Oerlemans, 2002). In 2-D modelling, a radiation scheme is vital to simulate terrain effects (slope, aspect and shading) on solar radiation receipt, and altitude effects on L ↓ receipt. As the proposed scheme does not explicitly account for shortwave radiation reflected, or longwave radiation emitted, from surrounding terrain, its application is probably limited to glaciers with little terrain obstruction. This is, however, the prevailing setting on tropical mountains (Reference Kaser and OsmastonKaser and Osmaston, 2002).

Since providing the future basis for spatially distributed mass-balance modelling of tropical glaciers was our main motivation, an application of the dataset from Glaciar Artesonraju to a physically based mass-balance model, including the new radiation scheme, extended this study. Results suggest that the radiation scheme and its parameters, that are optimized for a site in the accumulation area (Kilimanjaro), show skill for mass-balance studies of lower-lying sites in the ablation area of tropical glaciers (Glaciar Artesonraju) as well, which indicates suitability for 2-D modelling.

Changes in cloudiness and radiation have played a significant role in the behaviour of tropical glaciers in the recent past (Reference KrussKruss, 1983; Reference Mölg, Georges and KaserMölg and others, 2003a). Moisture transport to tropical mountain regions, in turn, strongly depends on the state of the tropical oceans (Reference Francou, Vuille, Favier and CáceresFrancou and others, 2004; Reference Mölg, Renold, Vuille, Cullen, Stocker and KaserMölg and others, 2006), which are and will be affected by large-scale changes in present and future climate. Thus, this paper also contributes to a better understanding of the radiation–mass-balance link on low-latitude glaciers in the context of climate change.

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF, grants No. P17415-N10, No. P20089-N10 and No. P13116-N06). N.J.C. is also funded by a Humanities Research Grant from the University of Otago. Local support for Kilimanjaro is provided by the Tanzania Meteorological Agency, the Commission of Science and Technology (COSTECH), the Tanzania and Kilimanjaro National Park Authorities (TANAPA and KINAPA, respectively), and for Glaciar Artesonraju by the Unidad de Glaciología e Recursos Hídricos (UGRH) of the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Ancash (INRENA, Peru). We thank our collaborator D. Hardy (who maintains AWS1), I. Juen, J. Corripio and M. Winkler for discussions. P. Wagnon from IRD kindly provided data from the Artesonraju AWS. Satellite data were provided by the NOAA/Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)/Earth and Space Research Laboratory (ESRL) Physical Sciences Division (PSD), Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their website at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/. The comments of D. van As, two anonymous reviewers and R. Hock (scientific editor) improved the clarity of the manuscript.

References

Brutsaert, W. 1975. On a derivable formula for long-wave radiation from clear skies. Water Resour. Res., 11(5), 742744.Google Scholar
Cullen, N.J., Mölg, T., Kaser, G., Hussein, K., Steffen, K. and Hardy, D.R.. 2006. Kilimanjaro glaciers: recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(16), L16502. (10.1029/ 2006GL027084.)Google Scholar
Cullen, N.J., Mölg, T., Kaser, G., Steffen, K. and Hardy, D.R.. 2007. Energy balance model validation on the top of Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using eddy covariance data. Ann. Glaciol., 46, 227233.Google Scholar
Duane, W.J., Pepin, N.C., Losleben, M.V. and Hardy, D.R.. 2008. General characteristics of temperature and humidity variability on Kilimanjaro. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res., 40(2), 323344.Google Scholar
Favier, V., Wagnon, P., Chazarin, J.P., Maisincho, L. and Coudrain, A.. 2004. One-year measurements of surface heat budget on the ablation zone of Antizana Glacier 15, Ecuadorian Andes. J. Geophys. Res., 109(D18), D18105. (10.1029/2003JD004359.)Google Scholar
Francou, B., Vuille, M., Favier, V. and Cáceres, B.. 2004. New evidence for an ENSO impact on low-latitude glaciers: Antizana 15, Andes of Ecuador, 0°28′S. J. Geophys. Res., 109(D18), D18106. (10.1029/2003JD004484.)Google Scholar
Garreaud, R., Vuille, M. and Clement, A.C.. 2003. The climate of the Altiplano: observed current conditions and mechanisms of past changes. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., 194(1), 522.Google Scholar
Hastenrath, S. 1978. Heat-budget measurements on the Quelccaya ice cap, Peruvian Andes. J. Glaciol., 20(82), 8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastenrath, S. 1984. The glaciers of equatorial East Africa. Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastenrath, S. 1997. Measurements of solar radiation and estimation of optical depth in the high Andes of Peru. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 64(1–2), 5159.Google Scholar
Hastenrath, S. and Greischar, L.. 1997. Glacier recession on Kilimanjaro, East Africa, 1912–89. J. Glaciol., 43(145), 455459.Google Scholar
Iqbal, M. 1983. An introduction to solar radiation. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Juen, I. 2006. Glacier mass balance and runoff in the Cordillera Blanca, Perú. (PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck.)Google Scholar
Kaser, G. and Georges, C.. 1997. Changes of the equilibrium-line altitude in the tropical Cordillera Blanca, Peru, 1930–50, and their spatial variations. Ann. Glaciol., 24, 344349.Google Scholar
Kaser, G. and Osmaston, H. 2002. Tropical glaciers. Cambridge, etc., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klok, E.J. and Oerlemans, J.. 2002. Model study of the spatial distribution of the energy and mass balance of Morteratschgletscher, Switzerland. J. Glaciol., 48(163), 505518.Google Scholar
Kruss, P.D. 1983. Climate change in East Africa: a numerical simulation from the 100 years of terminus record at Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya. Z. Gletscherkd. Glazialgeol., 19(1), 4360.Google Scholar
Lemke, P. and 10 others. 2007. Observations: changes in snow, ice and frozen ground. In Solomon, S. and 7 others, eds. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, etc., Cambridge University Press, 337383.Google Scholar
Lhomme, J.P., Vacher, J.J. and Rocheteau, A.. 2007. Estimating downward long-wave radiation on the Andean Altiplano. Agric. Forest Meteorol., 145(3–4), 139148.Google Scholar
Liebmann, B. and Smith, C.A.. 1996. Description of a complete (interpolated) outgoing longwave radiation dataset. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77(6), 12751277.Google Scholar
Meyers, T.P. and Dale, R.F.. 1983. Predicting daily insolation with hourly cloud height and coverage. J. Climate Appl. Meteorol., 22(4), 537545.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, D., Philipona, R., Ruckstuhl, C., Vogt, R. and Vuilleumier, L.. 2008. Performance and uncertainty of CNR1 Net Radiometers during a one-year field comparison. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 25(3), 442451.Google Scholar
Möolg, T. and Hardy, D.R.. 2004. Ablation and associated energy balance of a horizontal glacier surface on Kilimanjaro. J. Geophys. Res., 109(D16), D16104. (10.1029/2003JD004338.)Google Scholar
Mölg, T., Georges, C. and Kaser, G.. 2003a. The contribution of increased incoming shortwave radiation to the retreat of the Rwenzori glaciers, East Africa, during the 20th century. Int. J. Climatol., 23(3), 291303.Google Scholar
Mölg, T., Hardy, D.R. and Kaser, G.. 2003b. Solar-radiation-maintained glacier recession on Kilimanjaro drawn from combined ice–radiation geometry modelling. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D23), 4731. (10.1029/2003JD003456.)Google Scholar
Mölg, T., Renold, M., Vuille, M., Cullen, N.J., Stocker, T.F. and Kaser, G.. 2006. Indian Ocean Zonal Mode activity in a multicentury-integration of a coupled AOGCM consistent with climate proxy data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(18), L18710. (10.1029/2006GL026384.)Google Scholar
Mölg, T., Cullen, N.J., Hardy, D.R., Kaser, G. and Klok, E.J.. 2008. Mass balance of a slope glacier on Kilimanjaro and its sensitivity to climate. Int. J. Climatol., 28(7), 881892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, S., Raisanen, P. and Savijärvi, H.. 2001a. Comparison of surface radiative flux parameterizations. Part I: longwave radiation. Atmos. Res., 58(1), 118.Google Scholar
Niemelä, S., Raisanen, P. and Savijärvi, H.. 2001b. Comparison of surface radiative flux parameterizations. Part II: shortwave radiation. Atmos. Res., 58(2), 141154.Google Scholar
Oerlemans, J. and Knap, W.H.. 1998. A 1 year record of global radiation and albedo in the ablation zone of Morteratschgletscher, Switzerland. J. Glaciol., 44(147), 231238.Google Scholar
Ohmura, A. 2001. Physical basis for the temperature-based melt-index method. J. Appl. Meteorol., 40(4), 753761.Google Scholar
Prata, A.J. 1996. A new long-wave formula for estimating downward clear-sky radiation at the surface. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 122(533), 11271151.Google Scholar
Reijmer, C.H. and Hock, R.. 2008. Internal accumulation on Storglaciären, Sweden, in a multi-layer snow model coupled to a distributed energy- and mass-balance model. J. Glaciol., 54(184), 6172.Google Scholar
Sicart, J.E., Pomeroy, J.W., Essery, R.L.H. and Bewley, D.. 2006. Incoming longwave radiation to melting snow: observations, sensitivity, and estimation in northern environments. Hydrol. Process., 20(17), 36973708.Google Scholar
Troll, C. and Wien, K.. 1949. Der Lewisgletscher am Mount Kenya. Geogr. Ann., 31(1–4), 257274.Google Scholar
Van As, D., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C. and van de Wal, R.. 2005. The summer surface energy balance of the high Antarctic plateau. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 115(2), 289317.Google Scholar
Van den Broeke, M.R., van As, D., Reijmer, C. and van de Wal, R.. 2004. Assessing and improving the quality of unattended radiation observations in Antarctica. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 21(9), 14171431.Google Scholar
Van den Broeke, M., Reijmer, C., van As, D. and Boot, W.. 2006. Daily cycle of the surface energy balance in Antarctica and the influence of clouds. Int. J. Climatol., 26(12), 15871605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagnon, P., Ribstein, P., Francou, B. and Sicart, J.E.. 2001. Anomalous heat and mass budget of Glaciar Zongo, Bolivia, during the 1997/98 El Niño year. J. Glaciol., 47(156), 2128.Google Scholar
Wagnon, P., Sicart, J.E., Berthier, E. and Chazarin, J.P.. 2003. Wintertime high-altitude surface energy balance of a Bolivian glacier, Illimani, 6340m above sea level. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D6), 4177. (10.1029/2002JD002088.)Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Glacier extent on Kilimanjaro’s central part Kibo in 2003 (Cullen and others, 2006) and the location of AWSs and vertical ice walls (UTM zone 37S projection; contours at 200 m spacing). Africa’s highest point, Uhuru Peak (5895 m a.s.l.), the eruption cone (Reusch Crater) and Kersten Glacier (KG) are also indicated. The photo shows AWS3 (5873 m a.s.l.) in February 2005, with the CNR1 net radiometer circled (photo: N.J. Cullen).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Daily means of global radiation at AWS3 and TOA radiation (100% and 85%) over Kilimanjaro between 9 February 2005 and 9 January 2007.

Figure 2

Table 1. Mean values of radiative fluxes, screen-level air temperature and humidity, and horizontal wind speed at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro (9 February 2005 to 9 January 2007) and at the AWS on Glaciar Artesonraju (25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005). Values in parentheses give the standard deviation of daily means, and percentiles refer to daily incoming longwave radiation (discussed in section 3.3)

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Measured and modelled clear-sky global radiation for (a) daily means (N = 59 days) and (b) hourly means (N = 1416 hours) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Different symbols for the lower cluster in the daily plot (dashed rectangle) are explained further in the text.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Daily estimates of the daytime effective cloud-cover fraction neff (grey bars, with the bold line plot showing the 30 day running average) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro between 9 February 2005 and 9 January 2007. The point-symbol plot gives the monthly effective transmissivity of the atmosphere for shortwave radiation, τeff.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Cloud factor Fcl (all-sky divided by clear-sky incoming longwave radiation) versus the effective cloud-cover fraction neff derived from the solar radiation model (Equation (1)) between 1100 and 1500 h LT (N = 2800 hours) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Clear-sky incoming longwave radiation is calculated after the model of Brutsaert (1975), while all-sky incoming longwave radiation is a measurement. The black curve shows the polynomial fit.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. (a) Correlation coefficient between screen-level air temperature T and incoming longwave radiation L ↓ for water-vapour pressure (e) bins between 0.1 and 4 hPa (bin size is 0.1 hPa; p values based on t test) at AWS3 on Kilimanjaro. Bins of N < 100 hours are not shown. (b) Two bins are chosen for the scatter plot L ↓ versus T, one characteristic of low e and one of relatively high e.

Figure 7

Table 2. Coefficient of determination and RMSD (W m−2) between hourly parameterized and measured radiation terms at the Artesonraju AWS over 25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 (validation dataset). For L ↓, only hours from 0800 to 1700 h LT are considered. The bias is parameterized minus measured average value (W m−2). The same is shown for the optimization dataset from AWS3 on Kilimanjaro over 9 February 2005 to 9 January 2007

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Measured and modelled mean daily global radiation G (a) and daytime incoming longwave radiation L ↓ (b) at the Artesonraju AWS over 25 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 (validation dataset). Daily means are calculated from the hourly values evaluated in Table 2.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Measured and modelled specific mass balance at the Artesonraju AWS between 25 March 2004 and 31 March 2005, using (a) measured global radiation G and measured incoming longwave radiation L ↓ as model input; (b) parameterized G (case 1 in Table 2) and measured L ↓; and (c) measured G and parameterized L ↓ (case 2 in Table 2). The grey envelopes illustrate the range of the reference run when (center) measured G or (right) measured L ↓ is offset by ±5%.