the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sensitivity of the pseudo-global warming method under flood conditions: A case study from the Northeastern U.S.
Abstract. Intensified extreme precipitation and resulting flooding are among the most impactful consequences of climate change, especially over the northeastern US (NEUS). To project and understand the impacts of climate change (or related climate perturbations) on extreme weather events as they may occur in the future, the Pseudo-Global Warming (PGW) method has been employed with great success. However, it has never been ascertained to what degree the conclusions from PGW studies are sensitive to the design of the PGW experiment. Consequently, three key questions related to the application of the PGW method remain unanswered: At what spatial scale should climate perturbations be applied? Among the different meteorological variables available, which should be perturbed? And will PGW projections vary significantly under different experiment designs? To begin to address these questions, we examine the sensitivity and robustness of conclusions drawn from the PGW method over NEUS by conducting multiple PGW experiments. The results show that the projections of precipitation and other essential variables are consistent at the regional mean scale, with a relative difference of much less than 10\%; however, different experimental designs nonetheless cause significant displacements among storm events. Several previously assumed advantages of modifying temperature at the regional mean scale do not appear to hold, such as the preservation of geostrophic balance. Also, we find the regional mean perturbation produces a positive precipitation bias due to overestimated warming over the ocean. Overall, PGW experiments with perturbations from temperature or the combination of temperature and wind at the gridpoint scale are both recommended, depending on the research target. The first approach can isolate the spatially-dependent thermodynamic impact, and the latter incorporates both the thermodynamic and dynamic impacts.
-
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
(12066 KB)
-
Supplement
(23978 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12066 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(23978 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-482', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2022
I am rejecting this manuscript due to the substantial work needed for revision, but I encourage resubmission due to the interesting topic of this paper. Please see the attached comments for more details.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 13 Oct 2022
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions. We admit this paper had some issues you mentioned, but we think most issues are not fundamental and are caused by misunderstanding and lack of enough clarification. Therefore, we respond to all general issues and some major specific issues you mentioned in the response letter attached and hope it can address your concern. We will write a point-to-point response after the interactive review process and revise the paper correspondingly.
Bests,
Zeyu
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 29 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 13 Oct 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-482', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Oct 2022
This article deals with a hot topic that may suit HESS. This study examines the sensitivity and robustness of the PGW method over NEUS by conducting multiple PGW experiments. In addition, several PGW experiments are conducted to answer the three key questions related to the application of the PGW method. The results may help further understand the impact of different PGW simulations on climate projections. Overall, I think it is a pretty good job. However, some scientific or presentation issues need to be carefully addressed. Therefore, the reviewer recommends that this manuscript should be accepted after minor revision.
Minor revision:
- It is recommended to use consecutive line numbers.
- It is suggested that some necessary statistical parameters should be provided to quantify the difference in precipitation and temperature simulation performance of different schemes.
- The figures legend/caption is not self-explanation, which should be improved. In addition, many subgraphs in Figures 2 and 3 are very similar, making their differences challenging to identify. It is suggested to adopt the form of Figs.8-12 or add the statistical parameters mentioned in question 2.
- Figure 1 recommends that the macro location comes from the continent to geologically locate. The locations of the three regions should be marked in Figure 1
- Please clarify the "returned" flood period (2055 April to 2056 July). Is this the 50-year return period for floods considered? Why not consider using other periods?
- Please check whether Figure 13 is incorrect. Also, please adjust the color bars in Figures 11, 3, and S1, as some of them are not valid.
- The authors should rearrange the structures of the manuscript. The discussion is missing, maybe the result should change to result and discussion. You must buy the results from other similar studies in the discussions section. It is worth completing comparisons or differences with similar studies in other regions of the country or the world with related studies.
- The authors should further clarify the shortcomings and limitations of the study.
- Please check the format of the references to meet the journal's requirements.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-482-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zeyu Xue, 14 Oct 2022
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your appreciation and all these helpful suggestions. Certainly, these suggestions are very helpful in improving the scientific rigor and presentation of this work. We will revise the paper correspondingly after the interactive review process and provide a detailed point-to-point response letter.
Bests,
Zeyu
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-482-AC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Zeyu Xue, 29 Oct 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-482', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2022
I am rejecting this manuscript due to the substantial work needed for revision, but I encourage resubmission due to the interesting topic of this paper. Please see the attached comments for more details.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 13 Oct 2022
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions. We admit this paper had some issues you mentioned, but we think most issues are not fundamental and are caused by misunderstanding and lack of enough clarification. Therefore, we respond to all general issues and some major specific issues you mentioned in the response letter attached and hope it can address your concern. We will write a point-to-point response after the interactive review process and revise the paper correspondingly.
Bests,
Zeyu
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 29 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zeyu Xue, 13 Oct 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-482', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Oct 2022
This article deals with a hot topic that may suit HESS. This study examines the sensitivity and robustness of the PGW method over NEUS by conducting multiple PGW experiments. In addition, several PGW experiments are conducted to answer the three key questions related to the application of the PGW method. The results may help further understand the impact of different PGW simulations on climate projections. Overall, I think it is a pretty good job. However, some scientific or presentation issues need to be carefully addressed. Therefore, the reviewer recommends that this manuscript should be accepted after minor revision.
Minor revision:
- It is recommended to use consecutive line numbers.
- It is suggested that some necessary statistical parameters should be provided to quantify the difference in precipitation and temperature simulation performance of different schemes.
- The figures legend/caption is not self-explanation, which should be improved. In addition, many subgraphs in Figures 2 and 3 are very similar, making their differences challenging to identify. It is suggested to adopt the form of Figs.8-12 or add the statistical parameters mentioned in question 2.
- Figure 1 recommends that the macro location comes from the continent to geologically locate. The locations of the three regions should be marked in Figure 1
- Please clarify the "returned" flood period (2055 April to 2056 July). Is this the 50-year return period for floods considered? Why not consider using other periods?
- Please check whether Figure 13 is incorrect. Also, please adjust the color bars in Figures 11, 3, and S1, as some of them are not valid.
- The authors should rearrange the structures of the manuscript. The discussion is missing, maybe the result should change to result and discussion. You must buy the results from other similar studies in the discussions section. It is worth completing comparisons or differences with similar studies in other regions of the country or the world with related studies.
- The authors should further clarify the shortcomings and limitations of the study.
- Please check the format of the references to meet the journal's requirements.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-482-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zeyu Xue, 14 Oct 2022
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your appreciation and all these helpful suggestions. Certainly, these suggestions are very helpful in improving the scientific rigor and presentation of this work. We will revise the paper correspondingly after the interactive review process and provide a detailed point-to-point response letter.
Bests,
Zeyu
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-482-AC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Zeyu Xue, 29 Oct 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
WRF data in "Sensitivity and robustness examination of the pseudo-global warming method for flood events: A case study from the Northeastern U.S." Zeyu Xue and Paul Ullrich https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6609204
The sea level pressure animations during flood and dry periods used in paper "Sensitivity of the pseudo-global warming method under flood conditions: A case study from the Northeastern U.S." Zeyu Xue and Paul Ullrich https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6544880
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
449 | 133 | 23 | 605 | 48 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 449
- PDF: 133
- XML: 23
- Total: 605
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Paul Aaron Ullrich
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12066 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(23978 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper