the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Bottom–up approach for mitigating extreme events under limited intervention options: a case study with Lorenz 96
Abstract. Prediction and mitigation of extreme weather events are important scientific and societal challenges. Recently, Miyoshi and Sun (2022) proposed a control simulation experiment framework that assesses the controllability of chaotic systems under observational uncertainty, and within this framework, Sun et al. (2023) developed a method to prevent extreme events in the Lorenz 96 model. However, since their method is primarily designed to apply control inputs to all grid variables, the success rate decreases to approximately 60 % when applied to a single site, at least in a specific setting. Herein, we propose an approach that mitigates extreme events through local interventions based on multi-scenario ensemble forecasts. The success rate of our method is markedly higher than that of Sun et al.'s method, reaching 94 % even when applying interventions at one site per step, albeit with a moderate increase in the intervention cost. Furthermore, the success rate increases to 99.4 % during interventions at two sites. Unlike control-theoretic approaches adopting a top–down strategy, which determine inputs by optimizing cost functions, our bottom–up approach mitigates extreme events by effectively utilizing limited intervention options.
- Preprint
(6275 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-987', Qin Huang, 23 Apr 2025
reply
General Comments:
This manuscript demonstrates successful mitigation of extreme events in the Lorenz 96 (L96) model by applying localized interventions. Building upon the work of Sun et al. (2023) on control simulation experiments using LETKF-based data assimilation, the authors develop a control algorithm that selects intervention sites based on multi-scenario ensemble forecasts. The results show significantly improved success rates in reducing extremes - from approximately 60% in Sun et al. (2023) to 94% for one-site interventions and 99.4% for two-site interventions - with robustness demonstrated through sensitivity analyses of the success-cost trade-off. By focusing on limited and spatially constrained interventions, this work advances the feasibility of controlling chaotic systems under realistic operational constraints. As a radically new area of research in extreme weather control, this study represents a compelling step forward.
Specific Comments:
- DA method comparison - This study uses LETKF for data assimilation, following Sun et al. (2023), which makes sense for a high-dimensional system like L96. Several other studies in this area (e.g., Miyoshi & Sun 2022; Kawasaki & Kotsuki 2024; Nagai et al. 2024) use EnKF, particularly with the lower-dimensional L63 model. It could be helpful to briefly clarify the rationale for choosing LETKF here, and short comments on whether the assimilation method affects control outcomes (even qualitatively) could be of interest to readers.
- Control method comparison - While the manuscript positions the proposed method as a bottom-up alternative to top-down strategies like MPC, it does not include direct performance comparisons. A brief discussion of how the approach compares relative to recent MPC-based or other CSE studies could help contextualize its contributions. If direct comparisons are not feasible, outlining conceptual trade-offs or implementation differences would help clarify the novelty and practical significance.
- Optimal control - The current method selecting intervention scenarios by minimizing the maximum ensemble outcome is effective but not optimal. While other top-down strategies determine inputs using optimization minimizing costs, this utilizes limited intervention criteria.
- Perturbation magnitude - In Fig. 4 (one-site) and Fig. 8 (two-site), the reported perturbation magnitudes (642.1 and 674.9, respectively) seem quite large. It would help to clarify the units or scale used, are these relative to system variability, or absolute values in state units? Also, Fig. 4 references "operation energy" - what exactly does this refer to? The average number of changes (22.4, 22.1) are shown as non-integers, since interventions are presumably discrete in time, why are these fractional? Is this an average over ensembles or multiple trials?
Overall, these suggestions are meant as optional additions - the manuscript is already very complete and well-structured. Including a bit more comparative context could further enhance clarity for readers unfamiliar with the broader control and data assimilation literature.
Technical Correction:
No technical correction suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-987-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
64 | 11 | 5 | 80 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 64
- PDF: 11
- XML: 5
- Total: 80
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1