the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5
Abstract. The application of ground-based microwave radiometers (MWRs), which provide high-quality and continuous vertical atmospheric observations, has traditionally focused on the indirect assimilation of retrieved profiles. This study advanced this application by developing a direct assimilation capability for MWR radiance observations within the Weather Research and Forecasting model data assimilation (WRFDA) system, along with a bias correction scheme based on random forest technique. The proposed bias correction scheme effectively reduced the observation-minus-background (O−B) biases and standard deviations by 0.83 K (97.1 %) and 1.63 K (64.6 %), respectively. A series of ten-day-long experiments demonstrated that assimilating MWR radiances improves both the initial conditions and the forecasts, with additional benefits from higher assimilation frequencies. In the initial conditions, hourly assimilation significantly enhanced low-level temperature and humidity fields, reducing the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) for temperature and water vapor mixing ratio by 6.32 % below 1 km and 1.98 % below 5 km. These improvements extended to forecasts, where 2 m temperature and humidity showed sustained benefits for over 12 hours, and precipitation forecasts exhibited notable gains, particularly for higher intensity events. The time-averaged Fractions Skill Score (FSS) for 3 h accumulated precipitation within the 24 h forecasts increased by 0.04–0.11 (10.2–58.1 %) for thresholds of 6–15 mm.
- Preprint
(2804 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Apr 2025)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-12 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlYou have archived your code on several servers or sites which are not suitable repositories for scientific publication (actually only one complies, stored in Zenodo). Also, to access part of the code you request the readers to contact the corresponding author, which is totally unacceptable according to our policy, which clearly states that all the code and data must be published before submitting a paper and available to anyone without any restriction.
Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Please, publish your code and input and output data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. In the meantime I advise the Topical Editor to stall the review process for your manuscript, as it should have not been accepted for Discussions given the mentioned shortcomings.
I note that if you do not fix this problem and reply to this comment with the requested information, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Please, note that after addressing the mentioned issues, if your manuscript is considered acceptable to continue under review, you must include a modified 'Code and Data Availability' section in a potentially reviewed manuscript, containing the DOI and links of the new repositories.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-12-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Qing Zheng, 14 Feb 2025
reply
Dear Juan A. Añel,
Thank you for your feedback and for bringing this to our attention.
As requested, we have now archived all relevant code in a single Zenodo repository. The RTTOV-gb v1.0, WRF v4.5, WRFDA v4.5, along with the code for developing a direct assimilation module for MWR radiances and training a machine learning-based MWR bias correction model, are now fully available on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14865778.
Please let us know if any further adjustments are needed.
Best regards,
Qing ZhengCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-12-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Qing Zheng, 14 Feb 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-12', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2025
reply
First of all, I'd like to emphasize the very high quality of this article, in terms of science, innovation and writing. This article, although covering a complex subject, is very well explained.
The results presented here are very interesting, since they show that the impact of MWR data assimilation on thermodynamic fields is propagated by physics over several lead times, but also within microphysics, since it ultimately improves precipitation scores.
This paper will be a good reference in addition to that of Vural et al (2024), who have worked on the direct assimilation of MWRs but with a LETKF-type assimilation scheme, as well as that of Thomas et al (2024), who use a 3D-Var-type assimilation scheme but indirectly assimilate temperatures retrieved from MWR brightness temperatures.
Before publishing this article, I do have few minor comments or questions:
- Firstly, I'd like to have more details about the 10-day period over which the assimilation experiments were conducted. Unless I'm mistaken, it's implicitly understood that this is a clear-sky period (especially when the cloud cover mask is mentioned), but this is explicitly stated only at the end of the article. On the other hand, I think it would have been nice to provide more justification for this particular period.
- Still on the subject of this 10-day period, I'd like to know if you've carried out assimilation experiments over other periods? If so, what were the results equivalent? Why wasn't a longer period considered?
- Regarding the single observation experiment, I'd like to know why the specific humidity analysis increments aren't totally isotropic (although they're close) as they are for temperature.
- My final comment concerns Figures 10 and 12. I think it would have been clearer to present the RMSE or FSS values directly, rather than the differences with the control experiment. I understand that this removes a curve from the graphs and perhaps improves readability. But having the RMSE values would be informative about the errors made by the model.
In conclusion, despite some minor comments and questions, I would like to emphasize once again the quality of this article. It will make an excellent contribution to the GMD journal.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-12-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
169 | 38 | 8 | 215 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 38
- XML: 8
- Total: 215
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 70 | 32 |
China | 2 | 57 | 26 |
France | 3 | 13 | 6 |
Germany | 4 | 11 | 5 |
Switzerland | 5 | 7 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 70