the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The YOPP site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) phase 1: project overview and Arctic winter forecast evaluation
Abstract. Although the quality of weather forecasts in the polar regions is improving, forecast skill there still lags the lower latitudes. So far there have been relatively few efforts to evaluate processes in Numerical Weather Prediction systems using in-situ and remote sensing datasets from meteorological observatories in the terrestrial Arctic and Antarctic, compared to the mid-latitudes. Progress has been limited both by the heterogeneous nature of observatory and forecast data but also by limited availability of the parameters needed to perform process-oriented evaluation in multi-model forecast archives. The YOPP site Model Inter-comparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) is addressing this gap by producing Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs) and Merged Model Data Files (MMDFs), bringing together observations and forecast data at polar meteorological observatories in a format designed to facilitate process-oriented evaluation.
An evaluation of forecast performance was performed at seven Arctic sites, focussing on the first YOPP Special Observing Period in the Northern Hemisphere (SOP1), February and March 2018. It demonstrated that although the characteristics of forecast skill vary between the different sites and systems, an underestimation in boundary layer temperature variance across models, which goes hand in hand with an inability to capture cold extremes, is a common issue at several sites. Diagnostic analysis using surface fluxes suggests that this is at least partly related to insufficient thermal representation of the land-surface in the models, which all use a single layer snow model.
-
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
(5743 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5743 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Astrid Kerkweg, 26 Jan 2024
Dear Authors,
as you are evaluating a lot of model systems, I would have expected to see a code availability section (and not only a data availability section) at the end of your paper.
Please add the information, if and how, or why not the model codes of the different forecasting systems can be accessed.
Best regards,
Astrid Kerkweg (GMD executive editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-CEC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
Thanks for this comment, we have added the following data availability statement to the manuscript:
Apart from the ECMWF-IFS, for which an open access version of the code is available here: https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS, the model codes are not open access.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2024
General Comments:
This overview of the YOPPsiteMIP project demonstrates the project’s value in comparing model output with observations and diagnosing the shortcomings based on the governing equations, heat fluxes for example. The focus is on polar regions that have received less modeling attention than other latitudes. A lot of site-specific information is needed to interpret the results; is this provided in Meta data? This clearly is a major undertaking that has high scientific merit.
I have three questions that should help to further clarify the status of YOPPsiteMIP.
- The MODFs are finished for ~50% of Arctic sites and 0% of Antarctic sites (Fig. 1). Why is this?
- How challenging is it to transform the observations and model output into MODFs and MMDFs?
- Very high time frequency results are included in MODFs and MMDFs. What is the application of this capability?
Specific Comments:
- Line 55: Need Jung and Matsueda (2014) in reference list.
- Lines 74-75: Need details of Gallagher et al. (in prep.) in reference list.
- Line 173: Correct to “observatories”. Also line 241.
- Line 181: 2028-06-06?
- Page 10: Tolstykh et al. (2017) is not in list of references.
- Page 11: Under Convection: Kain and Fritsch (1990) is missing from the list of references. Under Microphysics: Correct to Seity et al. (2012).
- Page 12: Bastak-Duran et al. (2014) is missing from the list of references.
- Line 375: What does conditional mean?
- Line 412: word(s) missing after “closely”.
- Line 471: “Evaluation”.
- Lines 509-510: Positive wind speed bias is seen at Sodankyla for all the models but z0m is reasonable for the other models, so the situation is more complicated than discussed.
- Line 532: “The basic shape of the observed points is the same at both sites”. Not true from my perspective.
- Line 546: Correct “are” to “is”.
- Lines 664-669: Discriminate between the three Akish and Morris (2023) references.
- Lines 706-716: Reposition these references and eliminate duplicates.
- Lines 743, 803, 812, 849, 892, 910, 956: References used?
- Lines 808-811: Discriminate between the two Huang et al. (2023) references. Move Iacono et al. to correct location.
- Line 908: Move Seifert reference to correct location.
- Lines 945-946: Cox reference is incomplete.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951 - Response to reviewers', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1951/egusphere-2023-1951-AC1-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Astrid Kerkweg, 26 Jan 2024
Dear Authors,
as you are evaluating a lot of model systems, I would have expected to see a code availability section (and not only a data availability section) at the end of your paper.
Please add the information, if and how, or why not the model codes of the different forecasting systems can be accessed.
Best regards,
Astrid Kerkweg (GMD executive editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-CEC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
Thanks for this comment, we have added the following data availability statement to the manuscript:
Apart from the ECMWF-IFS, for which an open access version of the code is available here: https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS, the model codes are not open access.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2024
General Comments:
This overview of the YOPPsiteMIP project demonstrates the project’s value in comparing model output with observations and diagnosing the shortcomings based on the governing equations, heat fluxes for example. The focus is on polar regions that have received less modeling attention than other latitudes. A lot of site-specific information is needed to interpret the results; is this provided in Meta data? This clearly is a major undertaking that has high scientific merit.
I have three questions that should help to further clarify the status of YOPPsiteMIP.
- The MODFs are finished for ~50% of Arctic sites and 0% of Antarctic sites (Fig. 1). Why is this?
- How challenging is it to transform the observations and model output into MODFs and MMDFs?
- Very high time frequency results are included in MODFs and MMDFs. What is the application of this capability?
Specific Comments:
- Line 55: Need Jung and Matsueda (2014) in reference list.
- Lines 74-75: Need details of Gallagher et al. (in prep.) in reference list.
- Line 173: Correct to “observatories”. Also line 241.
- Line 181: 2028-06-06?
- Page 10: Tolstykh et al. (2017) is not in list of references.
- Page 11: Under Convection: Kain and Fritsch (1990) is missing from the list of references. Under Microphysics: Correct to Seity et al. (2012).
- Page 12: Bastak-Duran et al. (2014) is missing from the list of references.
- Line 375: What does conditional mean?
- Line 412: word(s) missing after “closely”.
- Line 471: “Evaluation”.
- Lines 509-510: Positive wind speed bias is seen at Sodankyla for all the models but z0m is reasonable for the other models, so the situation is more complicated than discussed.
- Line 532: “The basic shape of the observed points is the same at both sites”. Not true from my perspective.
- Line 546: Correct “are” to “is”.
- Lines 664-669: Discriminate between the three Akish and Morris (2023) references.
- Lines 706-716: Reposition these references and eliminate duplicates.
- Lines 743, 803, 812, 849, 892, 910, 956: References used?
- Lines 808-811: Discriminate between the two Huang et al. (2023) references. Move Iacono et al. to correct location.
- Line 908: Move Seifert reference to correct location.
- Lines 945-946: Cox reference is incomplete.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1951-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1951 - Response to reviewers', Jonathan Day, 21 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1951/egusphere-2023-1951-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Merged model Data Files (MMDFs) for the Meteo France ARPEGE global forecast model for various Polar sites E. Bazile and N. Azouz https://doi.org/10.21343/T31Z-J391
MMDFs for the Meteo France AROME regional forecast model for various Arctic sites E. Bazile and N. Azouz https://doi.org/10.21343/JZH3-2470
MMDFs for the Environment and Climate Change Canada-CAPS regional forecast model for various Arctic sites B. Casati https://doi.org/10.21343/2BX6-6027
MMDFs for the ECMWF-IFS global forecast model for various Polar sites J. Day https://doi.org/10.21343/A6KA-7142
MMDFs for the DWD-ICON global forecast model for various Arctic sites. H. Frank https://doi.org/10.21343/09KM-BJ07
MMDFs for the MetNorway AROME regional forecast model for various Arctic sites T. Remes https://doi.org/10.21343/47AX-MY36
MMDFs for the Roshydromet-SLAV global forecast model for various Arctic sites M. Tolstykh https://doi.org/10.21343/J4SJ-4N61
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
518 | 120 | 38 | 676 | 29 | 22 |
- HTML: 518
- PDF: 120
- XML: 38
- Total: 676
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Special Observing Period (SOP) data for the Year of Polar Prediction site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) Z. Mariani et al. 10.5194/essd-16-3083-2024
- Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs): an integrated observational data product supporting process-oriented investigations and diagnostics T. Uttal et al. 10.5194/gmd-17-5225-2024
Gunilla Svensson
Barbara Casati
Taniel Uttal
Siri-Jodha Khalsa
Eric Bazile
Elena Akish
Niramson Azouz
Lara Ferrighi
Helmut Frank
Michael Gallagher
Øystein Godøy
Leslie Hartten
Laura X. Huang
Jareth Holt
Massimo Di Stefano
Irene Suomi
Zen Mariani
Sara Morris
Ewan O'Connor
Roberta Pirazzini
Teresa Remes
Rostislav Fadeev
Amy Solomon
Johanna Tjernström
Mikhail Tolstykh
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5743 KB) - Metadata XML