the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Jul 2026
The Arctic Radiation-Cloud-Aerosol-Surface Interaction Experiment (ARCSIX) airborne campaign dataset
Abstract. The NASA airborne Arctic Radiation-Cloud-aerosol-Surface-Interaction Experiment (ARCSIX) collected a unique data set providing a near-simultaneous characterization of radiative fluxes, surface, cloud, and aerosol particle properties to address science questions on the surface radiation budget, the processes governing the cloud lifecycle, atmospheric composition, and the interactions between the surface and atmosphere. The overarching goal of ARCSIX was to quantify the contributions of surface, clouds, aerosol particles, and precipitation to summer sea ice melt. ARCSIX consisted of two deployments in 2024 (Spring: 2024-05-28 through 2024-06-13 and Summer: 2024-07-25 through 2024-08-15) to capture pre- and post-melt conditions. ARCSIX provided coordinated remote sensing and in situ sampling using three aircraft in a high-flyer/low-flyer configuration. The NASA G-III served as the high-flying remote sensing platform with two lower flying in situ and near-target remote sensor observing platforms, NASA P-3B and SPEC Inc. Learjet. ARCSIX data are well-suited to improve satellite remote sensing capabilities in the Arctic. ARCSIX included an array of sea ice mass balance buoys deployed in the Lincoln Sea that were regularly overflown during the campaign. ARCSIX research flights spanned the Baffin Bay, Lincoln Sea, west and north of the Canadian Archipelago, and the Greenland north and northeast coasts. During the spring deployment, 19 research flights took place covering 114 flight hours: 10 flights and 68 hours by the P-3B and nine flights and 46 hours by the G-III. During summer, 24 research flights covered 136 flight hours: nine flights and 75 hours by the P-3B, five flights and 26 hours by the G-III, and 10 flights and 35 hours by the Learjet. A total of 13 coordinated flights with 2+ aircraft were carried out. This paper describes the ARCSIX flight strategy, instrumentation, and data set access, and usage details. ARCSIX data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/ARCSIX/DATA001.
- Preprint
(10791 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4089 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-241', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-241', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Aug 2026
reply
I have been asked to review Sections 7.3 and 7.7-7.10 only. These sections are generally well-written. I have only a few minor comments:
Line 1212: Could you please elaborate a bit on how the "satellite-derived sea ice concentration" is obtained? From which satellites, and how does the derivation works?
Section 7.7: The freeboard measured by ICESat-2 should be snow freeboard (the height of the top of the snow layer) instead of sea-ice freeboard (the height of the ice-snow interface). Please clarify this in the text and figures.
Line 1282: Typo: "20024" --> "2024"
Lines 1311-1312: What does it mean by "surface turbulent and radiative flux systems" and "comprehensive surface meteorology" being included in "additional instrumentation"?
Line 1325: Undefined acronym "EM"
Caption of Figure S3:
For plot (b), could you please indicate which flight track you are referring to? Is it the red or yellow one on plot (a)? Also, there seem to be some words missing at the end of the caption.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-241-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2026-241', Anonymous Referee #3, 31 Aug 2026
reply
I was asked to review Sections 3.4.2 and 5 of the data description paper, “The Arctic Radiation-Cloud-Aerosol-Surface Interaction Experiment (ARCSIX) airborne campaign dataset” by Taylor et al., submitted to ESSD.
This manuscript presents a valuable dataset concerning aerosol–cloud interactions in the Arctic, a topic of great scientific importance that still requires further investigation. The dataset is well documented, and the flight strategies are described in sufficient detail, facilitating the evaluation and use of the dataset by potential users. However, I have several comments and questions that I believe require clarification.
Line 127: The phrase “darkens the albedo” does not seem very right. “Decreases the albedo” would be more accurate.
Lines 202–205: Would it be appropriate to specify the question as referring to “summer” clouds, given that the campaign was initially conducted during spring?
Line 230-236 Section 2.2.1: The square-spiral flight pattern seems to be a useful strategy for obtaining stable sampling conditions. Could you specify where these patterns were performed? For example, were they conducted in cloud-free regions, or were specific locations within weather systems targeted?
Line 303: Although a reference is provided, I suggest adding a brief sentence explaining what is meant by “quasi-Lagrangian observations.”
Line 405: Regarding “exhaust sampled during turns,” did the aircraft return exactly to the location from which it came, or was the presence of aircraft exhaust inferred from changes in the aerosol measurements during the subsequent flight leg? This needs more clarity.
Table 2 and 4: Knollenberg (1970) could be included as a reference for the OAP probes, and Lawson et al. (2019) for the 2D-S.
Table 2: For the first HVPS entry (following the FCDP), “vertical arm 150 µm is missing.
Table 2 and 4: For 2D-S and HVPS, is it necessary to list vertical and horizontal arms separately?
Table 2: The measurement range for the Nevzorov probe is missing.
Line 664: The reference to the Hawkeye combination probe is somewhat confusing because Hawkeye is not mentioned in Table 2. It may be helpful to mention the combination probe in parentheses in the table or in the corresponding text.
Line 665: Here, the maximum diameter is given as 45,000 µm, whereas Table 2 gives 45,075 µm. It would be preferable to use a consistent definition standard throughout the manuscript.
Line 669: Could you specify the four levels in terms of percentages?
Line 670: A size of 100 µm does not seem particularly small in this context.
Line 670-671: If the FCDP provides reliable measurements in cirrus clouds, this would imply that it contributes to measurements used for estimating IWC, which should then also be reflected in Table 2. If cirrus clouds were not sampled during the campaign, it may be preferable not to mention this capability here.
Line 674: Could you provide more information on how the shattering correction was applied?
Line 678: Please clarify what is meant by “small drops.” Are these drops not already within the FCDP size range? Small droplets would correspond to approximately 1–2 pixel images in the 2D-S and would therefore be associated with relatively large sizing uncertainties.
Line 681: The statement “discriminate small droplets from ice crystals” need clarification. Is the intention to discriminate small ice crystals from water droplets instead? Is the CPI used for this discrimination, and is the resulting classification subsequently applied to the 2D-S water-content measurements? Please explain the procedure in more detail.
Line 685: The PCASP is mentioned here but is not included in Table 2. Should it also be included there? Is the PCASP not also a DMT probe?
Line 687: The PCASP does not operate according to the same principle as all other cloud probes, particularly OAPs. Do you instead mean that it is mounted beneath the wing in a manner similar to the cloud probes? The PCASP's sample-flow principle also differs from that of several of the other cloud probes.
Line 689: I suggest using “ice water content” rather than “total” as you already mention liquid water content.
Figure 8: The notation and font sizes appear to differ between the panels. The text in the lower-left corner of panel (a) is difficult to read. In addition, is the composite PSD shown here provided directly in the database, or has the PSD been smoothed for the figure?
Line 700: How was ice mass derived from the FCDP measurements? Was the particle sizing based on Mie theory?
Line 708: Does this imply that every particle larger than 50 µm is classified as ice? This point requires further clarification, as it is an important methodological detail. If so, were supercooled large droplets and precipitation-sized liquid particles not considered? This assumption should be explicitly stated. If particles larger than 50 µm are not necessarily classified as ice, liquid water content parameters for the F2D-S, 2D-S, and HVPS may also need to be included in Tables 2 and 4.
Line 708: Is this not generally referred to as the “Korolev correction”?
Line 1133: You could refer the reader to Section 3.4.2 “for more details.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-241-RC3
Data sets
ARCSIX Suborbital data projects ARCSIX Team https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/ARCSIX/DATA001
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 298 | 107 | 12 | 417 | 36 | 21 | 22 |
- HTML: 298
- PDF: 107
- XML: 12
- Total: 417
- Supplement: 36
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments:
I reviewed the manuscript sections and figures requested by the editor, and also sections 1 introduction, 2 campaign overview, 3.2 radiation, and 3.3 surface properties. The reviewed parts of the manuscript show a very comprehensive and well written description of the ARCSIX campaign with informative figures and tables. This impressive Arctic campaign involved up to three US aircraft with ample in-situ and active and passive remote-sensing instrumentation. Starting from an airbase in the northwest of Greenland, all aircraft probed the very north of Greenland and Northeast Canada, and the Arctic Ocean / Ice shelf to the North of it during two intense observation phases in the spring and summer of 2024. The purpose was to improve scientific understanding of Arctic Amplification and the interpretation of satellite observations in the Arctic. Concerning the parts I reviewed, I have no objection to publication if my comments herebelow are taken into consideration.
Section 2.3 has only one subsection. I suggest the following simplification:
2.3 Flight Summary
2.4 Meteorology (instead of 2.3.1)
2.5 Summary and Special flight details
Fig 4 would benefit from a km scale
line 458: Table 2 says 5% uncertainty for the DLH (not 10%)
section 3.1.4, MARLi: please specify the typical horizontal and vertical spatial resolution for these lidar measurements. An additional figure or table might be appropriate. Please specify whether the mentioned random and systematic uncertainties are contained as specific variables in the dataset, and whether the dataset contains quality flags for the different issues enumerated at the end of section 3.1.4.
line 473: you probably mean within the first 200km, not 200m
section 3.2: please list the temporal and spatial resolution of all radiation sensors in Table 2 or in an extra table.
line 511: can you quantify the accuracy of the SPN1 calibration?
lines 542, 557 and 561: correct the references to the sections (e.g. section 4.3 instead of 4c)
Table 3, AVAPS: units are Hz, not hz
Fig 13 caption: MA%E denotes...
I have no comments concerning the sections 1, 3.1.5, 3.3, 3.4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, and the Figures 7 and 12.