the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Optimal Disturbances of Blocking: A Barotropic View
Abstract. In this paper, we explore optimal disturbances of blockings in the equivalent barotropic atmosphere using the conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation (CNOP) approach. Considering the initial blocking amplitude, the optimal disturbance exhibits a solitary wave-like pattern. As the size increases incrementally, the spatial pattern becomes more concentrated, and the nonlinear evolution becomes more pronounced. During the evolution, it only focuses on gradually intensifying the blocking amplitude without any other influence. Additionally, based on the medium-range experiments, the time-delay optimal disturbance appears to lead to larger errors, making it more challenging to predict. Considering the preexisting synoptic-scale eddies, the optimal disturbance displays a sharply concentrated pattern, even more concentrated by increasing the size. However, it is worth noting that the nonlinear evolution undergoes significant changes, compared to disturbances of the initial blocking amplitude. Meanwhile, we find that the optimal disturbance not only strongly impacts the amplitude of blockings but also their shape, making eddy straining and wave breaking more chaotic and predominant, further influencing the development of weather extremes. This suggests that blockings are more sensitive to perturbations of preexisting synoptic-scale eddies than initial blocking amplitudes. Furthermore, the perturbations of the synoptic-scale eddies are more likely to lead to the development of weather extremes, making them less predictable. In medium-range experiments, it is also found that time-delay disturbances result in larger errors, particularly during the decay period. Finally, we discuss how the variations of westerly wind influence optimal disturbances in spatial patterns and nonlinear evolution as well as their relation to predictability.
- Preprint
(2384 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2747', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Oct 2024
Atmospheric blocking has a significant impact on extreme weather events. It is thus important to comprehend the occurrence and evolution of the blocking. In this study, the authors use the CNOP method to investigate the blocking events in a multiscale interaction model and reveals that the blocking evolutions are sensitive to the initial perturbation and the preexisting synoptic-scale perturbation. This is an interesting topic and the manuscript is well written and organized. However, there are several critical issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.
1. In several previous studies, especially in Jiang et al. (2010; 2011), the CNOP has been used to investigate the onset of blocking, which is very similar to the present study. But these papers were not cited. I suggest that the authors should discuss and clarify the differences between the work of Jiang et al and this manuscript.
Jiang Zhina, Mu Mu and Wang Donghai,2011: Optimal perturbations triggering weather regime transitions: onset of blocking and strong zonal flow. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 28,59-68.
Jiang Zhina and Wang Donghai,2010: A study on precursors to blocking anomalies in climatological flows by using conditional nonlinear optimal perturbations. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 136(650), 1170-1180.
2. Lines 221 and 234, 𝐽 (𝑏0;𝐵0,𝐹0,𝑈) should be 𝐽 (𝑏_0;𝐵_0,𝐹_0,𝑈).
3. In this manuscript, the simulation results of the model are not validated. Could you add a subsection to check whether the model can well reproduce the basic feature of blockings?
4. In some previous studies about CNOP, two types of CNOP can be obtained. But in this study, only one CNOP is calculated. Whether there are two types of CNOP: one strengthens the blocking and the other weakens the blocking?
5. From Figures 3a and 3b, we can see that the error decays in the first five days. Why? What is the physical mechanism? In Lines 316-318, the description may be inaccurate. We can clearly observe that the error decays, rather than that the growth is weaker.
6. In this manuscript, the initial perturbation and the perturbation of the preexisting synoptic-scale eddies are both considered. This is remarkably different from previous studies by Jiang et al. (2010;2011), in which only initial perturbation was taken into account. In the realistic situation, these two types of perturbations may simultaneously exist. Could you give a discussion about the effects of the two types of perturbations?
7. In figure 8, more wave breakings are caused by the perturbation of preexisting synoptic-scale eddies. What is the physical reason?
8. Please confirm gama=2? in figures 10c and 11c.
9. The font size is too small in figures 4 and 8.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2747-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2747', Tamas Bodai, 08 Nov 2024
It is a nice paper, can be recommended to anyone specialised in the field or having lots of extra time. The authors are clearly very accomplished scientists, experts of the topic, with ample track record.
I omit a short summary of the paper, as customarily done for a review, and refer the reader of these lines to ask for it from ChatGPT (or to read the Abstract!). A colleague of mine says it did a wonderful job tested on his own paper. At the same time he was proud of himself that he could write a paper clear enough that even a machine could correctly summarise it. Perhaps i can recommend the authors to run a test like this on their own paper.
I don't know why i as someone with very little competence was picked to review this paper. Anyway, i did what i could. Please see the attached pdf with notes, corrections, suggestions and questions.
The single most important comment that i could make is that to a nonspecialist reader, it is not at all clear what is the main novelty in this paper. I say this with humility because it might just really be because of the lack of my competence. Alas, if ChatGPT can answer this question correctly, namely, the main novelty of the paper, then we can consider it proven that it's just me.
Talking about AI bots, I strongly suspect that the authors used such a tool to assist them with editing the paper. However, it was not thoroughly applied. I offered my help in the attached pdf in this regard too. (The authors are lucky because an American guy i know charges USD 50 per hour for language editing.) Btw. recently i started acknowledging in my papers that i don't use ChatGPT for writing my papers in ways of language support. May i suggest that you acknowledge if you used it?
Note: I always review papers non-anonymously and it is intended as a service to fellow authors only, not to editors. I do not support editors' work, specifically, i do not make recommendations for or against publishing a paper. Any recommendation that i might have made is to be considered void, and i did it just to be able to submit my review. Read more on my views here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-broken-system-scientific-publishing-which-can-fixed-tamas-bodai-qwxvf/?trackingId=EeyjRUp9RhGyYNMmcAWSCg%3D%3D
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
101 | 36 | 117 | 254 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 101
- PDF: 36
- XML: 117
- Total: 254
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1