the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impacts of All-Sky Himawari-9 AHI Radiance Assimilation on Cloud and Precipitation Forecasting over the Maritime Continent (JEDI-MPAS 3.0.3)
Abstract. The Maritime Continent remains a long-standing challenge for numerical weather prediction (NWP). Accurate prediction of tropical convection over this region is further complicated by its small spatial scales, rapid evolution, and strong nonlinearity. Geostationary infrared (IR) satellite observations are widely regarded as one of the most valuable data sources for regional NWP by offering high temporal and spatial resolution over a broad domain. This capability enables near-continuous monitoring of rapidly evolving weather systems from mesoscale to convective scale. Therefore, this study investigates the impacts of all-sky IR radiance assimilation on cloud and precipitation forecasts over this area. Both water vapor channels 8-10 and the cloud-sensitive window channel 13 from the new-generation Himawari-9 Advanced Himawari Imager (AHI) are assimilated using hybrid 3D/4DEnVar methods within the MPAS-JEDI system. Cycling assimilation experiments are conducted to systematically evaluate their impacts on the analysis, background, and forecast fields using multiple independent observations. Results suggest that, relative to clear-sky assimilation, the analyses of brightness temperatures and cloud-top heights from the all-sky AHI assimilation experiments exhibit a better fit to the all-sky observations. Background verification indicates overall neutral-to-positive impacts, with particularly pronounced improvements in humidity. Furthermore, short-range cloud and precipitation forecast errors are generally reduced in the AHI assimilation experiments. Adding channel 13 further enhances rainfall forecast skill during the first 12 hours, whereas the 4DEnVar framework yields more sustained improvements at longer lead times. These results underscore the promise of all-sky AHI radiance assimilation for improving convection-permitting forecasts over the Maritime Continent.
- Preprint
(8887 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2982', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xuewei Zhang, 29 Sep 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful review of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Our detailed point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached response document.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xuewei Zhang, 29 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2982', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2026
General Comments:
-----------------
This manuscript examines all-sky IR DA over the Maritime Continent and its sensitivity to different DA setups. The manuscript is pleasant to read, and the results are robust (the authors evaluated the performance of all-sky IR DA with a range of metrics and perspectives). I appreciate the authors' efforts to keep their manuscript succinct and their discussion of their observation error modelling. Most of my comments are quite minor. As such, I recommend an editorial decision of minor revisions for this manuscript.
Minor comments:
---------------
1) Section 2: Please relocate the description of your MPAS model to the start of Section 2. It is hard to understand your observation error model otherwise.2) Please state whether you are using the same grid spacing and parameterization schemes for all of your MPAS simulations. For example, do you use dx = 2.4 km for your 32-member ensemble, control member, and 6-hour forecasts?
3) L237: Are you assimilating GNSS-RO via the local or non-local obs operator?
4) L254: "vertical localization scales of ... 4 km" -- should this be 4 lnP, or something similar?
5) Fig 1: The y-labels for all of your sub-plots should be log( PDF ) instead of PDF.
6) Fig 2a: Please mention the transect you drew here in the caption, and use a different color to draw your transect line (the dashed line is hard to see for color-blind/weak folks).
7) Fig 3e and f: Just to be clear, you obtained these OmA's by running the CRTM on the analysis control member, and then compare against obs? DA systems sometimes spit out an "analysis BT" field, which turns out to be different from what is obtained by running the CRTM on the control member. See Kugler and Weissmann (2025) for an example.
Kugler, L., & Weissmann, M. (2025). Effects of observation‐operator nonlinearity on the assimilation of visible and infrared radiances in ensemble data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 151(770), e4970.
8) Section 3: please state how your observation time window is set up, particular for ASR4D. For example, does your window go from -3 hour to +3 hour, or 0 hour to 6 hour?
9) Fig 4: Have you taken a look at the relative humidity analysis increments to determine if the hydrometeor analysis increments are physically reasonable? If not, the issues detailed in Chan (2026) may contaminate your findings.
Chan, M. Y. (2026). Improving convection‐permitting all‐sky infrared radiance ensemble data assimilation through mitigating deleterious non‐Gaussian artifacts. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 152(774), e70039.
10) Section 4: you did a great job with comparing the results of the various experiments. To take this a step further, please add some deeper discussion about why different DA setups behaved differently. For example, why did ASR3D-Ch13 perform worse than ASR3D with respect to GNSS-RO the upper troposphere (Fig 5b, 8-10 km), and with respect to U from 850 hPa to 350 hPa (Fig 6b)? I am specifically asking for deeper discussions relating to the characteristics of the observation system (e.g., ch13) and DA fundamentals.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2982-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xuewei Zhang, 29 Sep 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful review of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Our detailed point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached response document.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xuewei Zhang, 29 Sep 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 149 | 25 | 353 | 14 | 12 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 149
- XML: 25
- Total: 353
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript examined the impact of all-sky Himawari-9 AHI radiance assimilation on the analysis and forecasts over the Maritime Continent using the JEDI data assimilation system and the MPAS model. In addition to the water vapor channels that have previously been widely used by similar studies, this study also explored the imapcts of window channel 13. The results suggest that all-sky radiance provides important moisture and hydrometeor information over cloudy regions, with channel 13 observations bringing additional benefits in constraining the distribution of clouds. Using a 4DEnVar approach can lead to longer-lasting benefits when assimilating all-sky radiance. This manuscript is overall well prepared. I have a handful of relatively minor suggestions to improve the clarity of the manuscript.
1. Line 129: Are these numbers the mean values of their respective OMBs?
2. Line 153: How were these three observation errors determined?
3. Table 2: It would be helpful to mark the variable symbols in equations 1 and 2 together with their names in the table.
4. Lines 162-163: "...the corresponding standard deviation estimated for that CA bin": standard deviation of what?
5. Figure 2: In panels e and f, why are the OMB values different if this is the first assimilation cycle? I would assume that the observations and the background values are identical between these two panels.
6. Lines 353-363 and Figure 6: Why was V-wind improved, but U-wind was generally neutral? Are they representing or relating to different processes?
7. Figure 8: There is no need to show "7h" in the x-axis. Additionally, CSR3D and ASR3D have the same color, and their error bars are indistinguishable from each other.
8. Line 430: What does "complete distribution" refer to?
9. Lines 444-445: Is there any proof of this statement? I would assume that in cloudy regions different infrared channels generally have the same values of radiance and therefore their sensitivities to hydrometeors within the cloud are similar (and result mostly from covariance).
10. Figure 10: What is the neighborhood size of FSS?