the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of reanalysis precipitable water vapor under typhoon conditions using multi-source observations
Abstract. Precipitable water vapor (PWV) exhibits rapid and complex variations during typhoons, and its evaluation under typhoon conditions remains challenging due to sparse observations over the oceans. This study systematically evaluates PWV estimates from three state-of-the-art reanalyses during 113 typhoons between 2020 and 2024 over the Northwest Pacific and East Asia. The fifth-generation European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA5), the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications Version 2 (MERRA-2), and the Japanese Reanalysis for Three Quarters of a Century (JRA-3Q) are compared with ground-based Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), radiosondes, and radio occultation (RO) observations. Results based on ground-based GNSS show that ERA5 provides the highest accuracy, with a bias of −1.65 mm in non-typhoon periods and an even smaller bias of −0.29 mm during typhoons, and root mean square error (RMSE) decreasing from 3.52 mm in non-typhoon periods to 3.40 mm during typhoons. JRA-3Q also has smaller error during typhoons compared to non-typhoon periods though its bias and RMSE remain relatively large. Conversely, MERRA-2 shows higher error during typhoons compared to non-typhoon periods, shifting from a modest underestimation of −0.53 mm in non-typhoon periods to an overestimation of 0.86 mm during typhoons, but still maintains accuracy throughout typhoon periods. PWV estimates from all three reanalyses show high correlations with those from radiosonde and RO observations. These results provide a comprehensive accuracy reference and confirm the suitability of reanalyses for PWV researches during typhoons, with ERA5 appearing the most reliable among the datasets evaluated.
- Preprint
(5715 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Nov 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4438', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Oct 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4438', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Nov 2025
reply
This study provides a systematic evaluation of PWV from three state-of-the-art reanalysis products, using GNSS, radiosonde, and RO data as reference. The authors compare reanalysis performance under TC and non-TC conditions. This work is valuable for understanding the reliability of reanalysis PWV, particularly during extreme weather events like TCs. However, there are significant concerns regarding the methodology regarding TC-related analyses , and the manuscript's writing requires substantial improvement. These issues need to be addressed before the study can meet the publication standards of ACP.
Major comments:
- The introduction currently contains many short paragraphs, which fragments the narrative and makes it difficult to follow the overall logic. I recommend merging these paragraphs to create a more cohesive and flowing argument
- It is recommended to use a TC best-track dataset, such as the IBTrACS (covering the whole globe) or the CMA TC best-track dataset (covering the Northwest Pacific), as the observational data for TC tracks and intensity.
- The interpolation method used to collocate the reanalysis data with the GNSS, radiosonde, and RO observation points must be clearly specified.
- Section 2.5: The criteria for determining if a station is within a TC's influence should be refined. Using a single, fixed distance from the TC center is insufficient. A more dynamic threshold, based on the TC's intensity and structure (e.g., the radius of force 7 winds) at the specific time, would be more physically sound. This same consideration applies to the collocation of RO profiles.
- Section 3.1.2: From a technical standpoint, if the aim is to account for TC genesis and residual circulation, a period of 2-3 days for the AP should be sufficient.
- Section 3.2: The comparison between TC and non-TC conditions is missing for the radiosonde data.
- Section 3.3: Errors of REAs are larger under TC conditions than non-TC conditions using RO as reference, which is the opposite of what is observed with GNSS as reference. The authors should explain this contrasting behavior.
- Section 3.4: The equation used to calculate the NSD should be explicitly provided in the manuscript. Additionally, TCs are asymmetric systems, therefore, large inconsistencies between neighboring grids (a high NSD) do not necessarily indicate a large error in the reanalysis product.
- The discussion section contains new results that should belong in the results section. The discussion should be revised to interpret existing findings, not introduce new ones. Additionally, this analysis does not address the major methodological concern raised earlier regarding the use of a single, fixed distance threshold for selecting stations within a TC's range.
Minor comments:
- Lines 125-126 “Specifically ...”: The language used here is imprecise and should be revised for scientific rigor.
- For clarity, please list only the three reanalysis products (i.e., ERA5, MERRA-2, JRA-55) in the first row.
- Details regarding the visual content of figures (e.g., Lines 269-271 and Lines 303-309) should be moved from the main text into the corresponding figure captions.
- Lines 278: The distinction between REA-PWVc and REA-PWVi should be explained. Is this primarily due to the spatial distribution of GNSS stations from these two networks?
- Line 284: Remove “from the GNSS ground-based observations".
- Lines 287-288: RB is essentially bias over PWV, and its pattern is dominated by PWV distribution.
- Line 290: The number of stations is used in the computation of both RMSE and bias. This statement need to be revised.
- Line 293: Add “among the REAs” after “are the largest”.
- Figure 2: The figure currently contains too much information, making it difficult to interpret. To improve clarity, I recommend that the results for the individual TC categories be moved to the supplementary material.
- Section 3.1.3: The equation used for the computation of dRMSE should be provided.
- Lines 342-357: The authors should avoid simply listing numerical results that are already visible in Table 2. Also, the text should explicitly guide the reader to the relevant Figures and Tables.
- Lines 376-388: This paragraph should be removed or substantially revised. It currently provides little persuasive insight.
- Line 415: (a-h) should be Figure 5 (a-h)
- Line 443: The instruction to "interpolate to the altitude of the TC center" is conceptually problematic for PWV, as it is a vertically integrated, two-dimensional variable (lat-lon).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4438-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 97 | 14 | 290 | 12 | 13 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 97
- XML: 14
- Total: 290
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find attached pdf for detailed review reports.