the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Targeted Teleconnections and their Application to the Postprocessing of Climate Predictions
Abstract. The demand for skillful climate predictions on subseasonal-to-multidecadal time scales is rising almost by the day, not least because the growing renewable energy sector, but also many other important socio–economic sectors are vulnerable to climate variations. Large scale atmospheric patterns in the North–Atlantic European sector, so-called teleconnections, are well known to have major influence on European climate conditions. For that reason there exists a wide variety of hybrid dynamical–statistical applications, which combine dynamical model output with teleconnections in one way or another to improve the rather modest predictive skill of state-of-the-art dynamical climate forecasts over Europe. The potential improvement generated by these kinds of postprocessing methods is naturally limited by the strength of association between the circulation patterns and the local climate parameters. We propose a statistical technique to retrieve atmospheric patterns—targeted teleconnections—that are maximally predictive for a given climate parameter in a region of choice so as to optimize the potential of statistical postprocessing. The possibility of improvement in forecast skill induced by the implementation of targeted teleconnections is demonstrated in four applications.
- Preprint
(9848 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(36504 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Oct 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3664', André Düsterhus, 09 Sep 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3664', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Sep 2025
reply
Targeted Teleconnections and their Application to the Postprocessing of Climate Predictions by Clementine Dalelane et al.
General comments:
This work proposes the employment of a multivariate regression analysis technique known as Partial Least Squares Regression (PLS) to various applications in climate science. Although there are several other statistical methods proposing ways to obtain targeted-teleconnections in reconstructing surface variables over Europe, this work adds PLS to the list.
The manuscript is well written by organizing the work into different sections. Nevertheless, the overuse of various applications to demonstrate the robustness of the method and the use of complex sentences in the results section have not helped in conveying the intended message to the reader. To improve the readability of the manuscript, I suggest splitting this work into two parts: Part-A detailing the methods through the use of just one elaborative application (for example, to improve seasonal forecasts of temperature and precipitation over Germany); Part-B showcasing all the other applications in more detail. Keeping this in mind, I suggest a major revision of the manuscript before I can recommend it for publication.
Specific comments:
1. Introduction:
- State the novelty of the work explicitly in the introduction.
- This work is missing some important citations. Please find the references below for more details.
2. Methods/Results: The scientific contibution of this work increases significantly if PLS is compared and contrasted with other popular multivariate techniques such as CCA or MCA or RDA. Given that this route takes long, I let the authors make a decision about it.
3. L3-4: Large-scale atmospheric patterns are not teleconnections by themselves. As you have mentioned, large-scale climatic modes of variability can influence surface weather over Europe and elsewhere. It is because of this link they are called teleconnections. Kindly reformulate.
4. L110: Why use MSLP instead of any other upper-level field such as Z500 (mid-troposphere)/Z200 (near tropopause)? I have personally witnessed that Z500 forecasts are more skillful than MSLP forecasts. Nonetheless, the trend prevalent in Z500 fields could make statistical downscaling difficult. I recommend the following investigations:
- Could you compare the skill of MSLP and Z500 forecasts to justify the choice of your predictor?
- Could you compare the trend of Z500 and MSLP?
When comparing the gain in skill using Z500 over MSLP to the complexity in dealing with trend using Z500, you could fairly justify your choice of the predictor.
5. L110-111 and L116-117: Since your validation period (i.e., hindcasts between 1990 and 2020) is already included in training (i.e., in ERA5 between 1951 and 2020), does it not add artificial skill to the statistical forecasts?
6. L117-118: Which method did you use to upscale ERA5 reanalysis onto 1° grid? For information, the S2S4E project conducted a study testing all the available method of regridding on several variables and have made specific recommendations on the choice of optimal methods for different variables (for example, bilinear for T2M and conservative for PR). Kindly state the methods you have employed with justification.
7. L125-126: I suggest discussing the details about detrending here instead of in lines L220-225.
8. L230-231: Since you are relying on (more skillful) MSLP forecasts to reconstruct (less skillful) T2M, did you apply the PLS method lead time by lead time as well? It is important because the forecast skill degrades with lead time.
9. L236-239: The use of just 2 leading components appears arbitrary. Did you notice a drop in the coefficient of determination with the use of additional vectors? Could you plot this figure (either as a response or in the appendix)?
10. Section 4.3.4: The use of “T2M-targeted teleconnections” is not very clear to me in this section. Did you use already improved sub-ensemble of T2M predictions (reconstructed using MSLP) to select specific members of wind speed and solar radiation predictions? Could you please elaborate?
Technical corrections:
1. L121: ‘e’ missing in none.
2. L288: teleconnections
References:
- Michelangeli, P., R. Vautard, and B. Legras, 1995: Weather Regimes: Recurrence and Quasi Stationarity. J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 1237–1256, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052<1237:WRRAQS>2.0.CO;2.
- Buizza, Roberto, and Martin Leutbecher. "The forecast skill horizon." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 141.693 (2015): 3366-3382.
- Lledo, Llorenç, and Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes. "Predicting daily mean wind speed in Europe weeks ahead from MJO status." Monthly Weather Review 148.8 (2020): 3413-3426.
- Büeler, D., Ferranti, L., Magnusson, L., Quinting, J.F. & Grams, C.M.(2021) Year-round sub-seasonal forecast skill for Atlantic–European weather regimes. Q J R Meteorol Soc, 147(741, 4283–4309. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4178.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3664-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
681 | 38 | 10 | 729 | 29 | 38 | 33 |
- HTML: 681
- PDF: 38
- XML: 10
- Total: 729
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of Dalelane et al.: "Targeted Teleconnections and their Application to the
Postprocessing of Climate Predictions"
The manuscript focusses on the application of Partial Least Squares Regression (PLS) in various application of reanalysis evaluation and seasonal climate prediction.
In general, the focus of the manuscript is not clear. It takes for vast sections the form of a statistical paper, especially with the section on related methods. It shows then how it can be applied in various applications, but those seem not to be chosen necessarily to show the strength and weaknesses of the method. As these applications are quite complex for those readers not familiar with it, a proper structure is missing to help a reader to not only understanding what has been done, but what it explains this for the statistics used. Generally, such a paper would not be suitable for the chosen Journal, as it usually addresses physical climate or weather research. Perhaps another journal would therefore be more appropriate (as the about-page of "Weather and Climate Dynamics state", perhaps "Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics is a better fit).
Should the target be to publish it in the chosen journal, then a major rewrite would be required. It would need to focus more on the physical arguments, why the statistical results are valid. Up to now the authors try to circumvent these discussions by pointing to a couple of other references. Usually this would be fine, but as the authors try here to discuss not only the typical winter or summer season, but year round, the literature would require a much better backup for these results as currently provided. What are the physical reasons that a reader should trust the statistical result? Also, due to the complexity of the four applications, it lacks the general option to reproduce the results by a reader wishing to do so.
In conclusion, as a reviewer I am not of the opinion that the current manuscript is suitable for publication in the current journal. I refrain from outright suggesting its rejection, but would instead suggest, that the authors follow up with a major revision addressing the problems of potential replicability, a better structure and a clearer focus on what the manuscript should be about. Such a complex topic would require a guiding hand to an author and this is up to now not given.
See below further more detailed comments on some major points.
Further comments:
Affiliations: The numbers are not in order, 4 comes before 2.
54: "But ML is just another name for statistics" -> ML is a statistical method, but not another name for it. Do the authors mean statistical downscaling?
134: Direct citation not necessary. Paraphrasing of the content would be sufficient.
165: Direct citation not necessary. Paraphrasing of the content would be sufficient.
169: Section 3.2: Why such detail on related methods? They either will be applied in the manuscript, or are part of the introduction or discussion as context. How it is solved here is not really understandable.
173: Direct citation of such length are inappropriate. I would strongly ask the authors to use their own words.
198: The introduction section of this chapter focuses again on things not done in this manuscript and on statistical details. Also such things would belong to introduction or discussion.
212: I strongly suggest to divide the section 4.1 into subsections, to allow the reader to follow the authors step by step in their arguments. Currently the description of a method, the application of it on a specific application and the result discussion are merged here.
223: The authors claim they found no difference, but if this should be a necessary sensitivity test, then it should be properly addressed and statistically quantified. Just visual inspection is not a valid evaluation method.
232: "Let us repeat" -> This sentence indicates that the whole section is quite unstructured and complex to follow. I suggest a sketch, which allow a systematic description of the procedure, which is currently not given. Warnings and discussions can then be added at the end of the description or in the discussion.
236: "We decided to regress..." -> Can the number two be justified and quantified by a sensitivity test?
248: This would need a proper discussion on the physical interpretation of the results of the statistical approach. Claiming that the NAO and EAP are the same and can be interpreted the same is not covered by literature. As those discussions in literature usually focus on DJF and JJA, it would require a detailed analysis at this point. Especially the patterns in MAM and SON need a deeper phyiscal discussion.
264: References are up to here sorted in increasing year of publishing, here it is the other way round.
FIG 1: Caption does not state which dataset was used. I assume ERA 5.
279: Here sub-selection is introduced. While a short section on this approach can be found in the introduction, for a reader unfamiliar with this approach, this section will not be helpful. While it is in a section of what can all be achieved with the statistical approach, it does not provide a structured way of guiding a reader through these complex topics. It confronts the reader with Fig. 3, which neither makes statements of significances, nor improvement by this new approach. This section requires therefore a much better structure to clearly allow the reader to access what was done, how it was done and the opportunity to replicate the results. All is not sufficiently solved in this draft.
282: MSESS is introduced without reference and without proper introduction of what is a good or bad score.
292: Exist here a reference?
300: The text talks about improvement in Fig. 4, but as I can evaluate the caption what is shown is absolute values. From absolute values it is not possible to derive information on the difference, so if the aim is to talk about those, I would strongly suggest to the authors showing those.
Fig. 5: Everything is very small in this plot. Readability in this form not given.