the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying the analysis uncertainty for nowcasting application
Abstract. This study proposes a method to quantify the uncertainty of the error in the very high–resolution analysis in near–surface level for nowcasting application. We perturbed the first guess field and observation with Gaussian–distributed perturbations, which have variance equal to that of first guess error. The first guess error not only reflects the spatial characteristic of the difference between the first guess field and observation but also dominates the major uncertainty information of analysis errors. It is important to consider the attenuation of uncertainty dispersion caused by interpolation. Gaussian perturbations are combined with an inflation factor to estimate the attenuation of perturbation dispersion. To assess this method, it was applied to high–resolution analysis and nowcasting in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region for hourly temperature, humidity and wind components. To evaluate the transmission of perturbation information in the nowcasting extrapolation, the ensemble analysis is used to compute ensemble nowcasting. The verifications show that the ensemble analysis has reasonable spread and high reliability, demonstrating effective and accurate quantification of the analysis error uncertainty. Verifications of ensemble nowcasting illustrate that the ensemble spread has effective growth within the nowcast extrapolation up to a lead time of 2 hours, but highly depends on the trend of NWP. The results prove that the propagation of analysis uncertainty representation in nowcasting extrapolation can match to the error increment, beneficial for estimating the near–surface nowcasting uncertainty.
- Preprint
(1624 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2251 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1554', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Oct 2024
In this manuscript, the authors claimed that they quantify uncertainty in nowcasting. However, I think the quality of this manuscript does not reach the level of a publishable work for a few key reasons:
- The author misunderstood a few fundamental concepts in forecast post-processing. I have not seen the term ‘analysis uncertainty’ before, and it is very hard to know what it exactly refers to. If you are talking about uncertainties in weather forecasts, you should point that out, rather than using terms like: ‘ ensemble analysis ’, ‘analysis uncertainty’, ‘SIVA uncertainty’, etc. In results, the authors tried to compare the ensemble spread with RMSE (e.g., line 203), giving me the impression that they do not really understand the basic statistics of weather forecasts.
- The manuscript has been carelessly prepared, making it extremely confusing and hard to understand. The whole manuscript reads like an automatic translation from a foreign language to English, using some software. Lots of grammatical errors and awkward expressions, making it hard to learn what they want to introduce. Please see examples in the detailed comments below.
- Results did not show much improvements, in the resultant ensemble forecasts relative to the original forecasts. I could not figure out the necessity of this work. In addition, many findings presented are based on speculation, rather than based on solid data analysis.
Detailed comments:
Line 21, what is the trend of NWP? You should spell out the full name of NWP, when using it for the first time.
Line 37, what does ‘the analysis’ refer to?
Line 42, the ‘impact’ on what?
Line 43, what is the analysis error
Line 52, error produced by interpolation?
Line 56, a very awkward way of introducing NWP
Line 69, to as?
Line 74, analyses are
Line 77, for which months?
Line 84, how can you calculate analysis
Line 110, ‘Selected…..’ this is not a complete sentence
Line 115, no north arrow, no scale bar, no location information of the study area
Line 131,no clear what is ‘valley, floor and surface’
Line 154, no indentation
Line 166, there is no red line in the above figure
Line 172, why capitalize the word Analysis
Line 183, which summer month and which winter month?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1554-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yong Wang, 27 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1554', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Nov 2024
This work offers a relevant contribution in the field of meteorological nowcasting, presenting a method to quantify the uncertainty in high resolution analysis at surface level by using a perturbation approach. Nowcasting accuracy is crucial for short term weather events forecast, so this work offers a good contribution because the ideas of using perturbations combined with an inflation factor allows a detailed description of uncertainties derived from the differences between observation and initial estimates. The method has been verified in a specific region through several crucial variables, confirming the robustness of the proposed approach. In my opinion, the manuscript can be considered for publication, but a general revision is needed, in order to address the following comments.
The introduction of the inflation factor represents an important improvement; however, it could be not sufficient to represent the complexity of the interpolation uncertainty. For this reason, I recommend the authors to better clarify the limitation of the proposed approach and to describe the possible potential future improvements.
The method works well with temperature and humidity, but has some difficulties with wind components. The authors claim that it is due to the lack of appropriate observational perturbations, however I recommend to add a more convincing explanation of this limitation.
The English style is sufficiently accurate, but it is necessary to improve the readability and clarity. Some complex phrases must be simplified, in order to enhance the readability. There are some grammatical errors; in the following I have reported some errors and imperfections, but there are many others scattered over the text, so a general revision is required.
L 29 Avoid repeating the word “nowcasting” twice on the same line.
L 29 Change “nowcasting is with uncertainties” with "nowcasting involves uncertainties".
L 36 Avoid repeating the word “uncertainty” twice on the same line.
L 51-52 Something is wrong in the English syntax, this sentence is not clear.
L 54 Change “consider” with “considering”.
L 65 (NWP) - I do not understand which NWP are you talking about.
L 66 Haiden et al., 2010, 2011 were already cited at line 64, please remove here.
L 72-78 This paragraph is confusing and hard to be read. I suggest to remove it and to replace it with a description of the importance of this approach (i.e. strengthens), while this technical description could be moved elsewhere.
L 102-103 “are to match the stations at different altitudes ensure that NWP can be corrected in combination with the topographic parameters at station location”. There is something wrong in the English style.
L 119-121 Avoid using the word “ensemble” five times in the same sentence.
L 121 “is covered”. Do you probably mean “covers”? Otherwise there is a syntax error.
L 296 change “for nowcasting at initial time” with “at the initial time of nowcasting”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1554-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yong Wang, 27 Nov 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
279 | 87 | 94 | 460 | 38 | 17 | 15 |
- HTML: 279
- PDF: 87
- XML: 94
- Total: 460
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1