the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Rescuing historical weather observations improves quantification of severe windstorm risks
Abstract. Billions of historical climatological observations remain unavailable to science as they exist only on paper, stored in numerous archives around the world. The conversion of these data from paper to digital could transform our understanding of historical climate variations, including extreme weather events. Here we demonstrate how the rescue of such paper observations has improved our understanding of a severe windstorm that occurred in February 1903 and its significant impacts. By assimilating newly rescued atmospheric pressure observations, the storm is now credibly represented in an improved reanalysis of the event. In some locations this storm produced stronger winds than any event during the modern period (1950–2015) and it is in the top-4 storms for strongest winds anywhere over land in England & Wales. As a result, estimates of risk from severe storms, based on modern period data, may need to be revised. Examining the atmospheric structure of the storm suggests that it is a classic Shapiro-Keyser-type cyclone with ‘sting jet’ precursors and associated extreme winds at locations and times of known significant damage. Comparison with both independent observations and qualitative information, such as photographs and written accounts, provides additional evidence of the credibility of the atmospheric reconstruction, including of sub-daily rainfall variations. Simulations of the storm surge resulting from this storm show a large coastal surge of around 2.5 m, comparing favourably with newly rescued tide gauge observations and adding to our confidence in the reconstruction. Combining historical rescued weather observations with modern reanalysis techniques has allowed us to plausibly reconstruct a severe windstorm and associated storm surge from more than 100 years ago, establishing an invaluable end-to-end tool to improve assessments of risks from extreme weather.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13608 KB)
-
Supplement
(2893 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13608 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2893 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Nov 2022
The paper analyses the Ulysses storm in 1903, one of the strongest storms in UK history. This storm is analysed in 20CRv3, and then the assimilation is rerun with a lot of newly rescued observations, and further with an improved inflation scheme in the assimilation. Results show that the improved 20CRv3 produces a stronger storm, with stronger winds and higher probability for "sting jets" and related surface wind feature. The authors also analyse precipitation. When coupling a storm surge model to the reanalysis, the tide gauge record in the area of Liverpool is better depicted. Overall this is a very nice case study of a historical storm, a very nice demonstration of the power of numerical methods, and a very nice illustration of the usefulness of rescuing observations. The paper is well written, though a bit unconventionally structured. I only have a couple of small questions.
- First of all: What a nice case! This is a text book storm.
- I am missing more information on the additionally included data (number of new measurements per day etc.), their QC processing. What was the observation error assigned? Also it would be relevant to include marine data in the coverage plots.Â
- This concerns specifically also the tide gauge record. The authors mention that the QC is not yet doe and this work is in process, but t is hard to get a feeling for the error.
- How does the assimilation system digtest the quite massive increase in the input? Given the decreased spread, are some of the "original" observations now rejected or vice versa?
- Fig. 3: Is the ensemble mean of the version "with new data" captured in the ensemble spread of the "raw" 20CRv3? This would be interesting for useres that cannot rerun 20CRv3. The figures in the Appendix on the spread and RMSE ratio are nice, but do not directly answer the question for this case.Â
- Say a bit more on the storm surge model already in the main text (at least mention the resolution and start of integration).
- L. 367: https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_7c59f237-7add-4d78-9c99-4e4210a926e1/ produces a "not found" in my browser
- The reference list is a it messy (punctiation, initials, use of "et al.", use of "and", "&" or nothing, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC3-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Nov 2022
The paper analyses the Ulysses storm in 1903, one of the strongest storms in UK history. This storm is analysed in 20CRv3, and then the assimilation is rerun with a lot of newly rescued observations, and further with an improved inflation scheme in the assimilation. Results show that the improved 20CRv3 produces a stronger storm, with stronger winds and higher probability for "sting jets" and related surface wind feature. The authors also analyse precipitation. When coupling a storm surge model to the reanalysis, the tide gauge record in the area of Liverpool is better depicted. Overall this is a very nice case study of a historical storm, a very nice demonstration of the power of numerical methods, and a very nice illustration of the usefulness of rescuing observations. The paper is well written, though a bit unconventionally structured. I only have a couple of small questions.
- First of all: What a nice case! This is a text book storm.
- I am missing more information on the additionally included data (number of new measurements per day etc.), their QC processing. What was the observation error assigned? Also it would be relevant to include marine data in the coverage plots.Â
- This concerns specifically also the tide gauge record. The authors mention that the QC is not yet doe and this work is in process, but t is hard to get a feeling for the error.
- How does the assimilation system digtest the quite massive increase in the input? Given the decreased spread, are some of the "original" observations now rejected or vice versa?
- Fig. 3: Is the ensemble mean of the version "with new data" captured in the ensemble spread of the "raw" 20CRv3? This would be interesting for useres that cannot rerun 20CRv3. The figures in the Appendix on the spread and RMSE ratio are nice, but do not directly answer the question for this case.Â
- Say a bit more on the storm surge model already in the main text (at least mention the resolution and start of integration).
- L. 367: https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_7c59f237-7add-4d78-9c99-4e4210a926e1/ produces a "not found" in my browser
- The reference list is a it messy (punctiation, initials, use of "et al.", use of "and", "&" or nothing, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC3-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Observation data Ed Hawkins https://github.com/ed-hawkins/weather-rescue-data
20CRv3 data Ed Hawkins https://github.com/ed-hawkins/ulysses-storm-data
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,159 | 225 | 24 | 1,408 | 45 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 1,159
- PDF: 225
- XML: 24
- Total: 1,408
- Supplement: 45
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Philip Brohan
Samantha Burgess
Stephen Burt
Gilbert Compo
Suzanne Gray
Ivan Haigh
Hans Hersbach
Kiki Kuijjer
Oscar Martinez-Alvarado
Chesley McColl
Andrew Schurer
Laura Slivinski
Joanne Williams
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13608 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2893 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper