Revisiting the synoptic-scale predictability of severe European winter storms using ECMWF ensemble reforecasts

Pantillon, Florian; Knippertz, Peter; Corsmeier, Ulrich

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1795-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1795-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1795-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 10

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

19 Oct 2017

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 19 Oct 2017

Revisiting the synoptic-scale predictability of severe European winter storms using ECMWF ensemble reforecasts

Florian Pantillon, Peter Knippertz, and Ulrich Corsmeier

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Oct 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Mar 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Pantillon et al. 2017', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 May 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to referee comment 1', Florian Pantillon, 28 Jul 2017
RC2: 'Review of “Revisiting the synoptic-scale predictability of severe European winter storms using ECMWF ensemble reforecasts” by Florian Pantillon, Peter Knippertz, and Ulrich Corsmeier', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to referee comment 2', Florian Pantillon, 28 Jul 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (06 Aug 2017) by Ricardo Trigo

AR by Florian Pantillon on behalf of the Authors (07 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Aug 2017) by Ricardo Trigo

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Aug 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of revised version of Revisiting the synoptic-scale predictability of severe European
winter storms using ECMWF ensemble reforecasts

The authors almost included all my suggestions and comments in a reasonable way. Still as the manuscript underwent considerable changes some mainly technical corrections remain. Despite one point is still not treated adequately. The basis of the page and line notation below is the file nhess-2017-122-author_response-version1.pdf:

P1,l11-14: This sentence is awkward, maybe the authors forgot to remove something when editing.

P1,l22-24: Concerning the statement ‘…question lies in the trends in frequency and intensity of winter storms in the current and future climate. This question is disputed due to little agreement between climate models and between identification methods (see Feser et al., 2015, for a review). However, the intensity of…’ makes no sense. How cane the question be disputed by little agreement between climate models/methods? Also the ‘However’ makes a connection between the sentences which makes no sense, so please reformulate.

P2,l25: Change throughout the text methodology to method as methodology is defined as is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study.

P2,l28: There is blank before a comma.

P3,l13: Please cite the papers for the ‘other authors’

P4l25-27: If so why not comparing then max wind at the lowest level and remove the uncertainty source of gust parameterizations.

P6,l11: Please change to ‘Neu et al. (2013) emphasized’

P7,l27 : Roberts et al. (2014) not in brackets.

P10, l20: The sentence is awkward, please clarify.

P12,L3: please change to ‘which impacts the SSI’

P12,L30-31: please change to ‘they are forecasted’

P14, L8: please change to ‘In contrast to the previous studies,’ and add references

P16,L34: Methodology -> method

P18,L16: Should -> can

P18,L23: should -> shall

References: Still some titles are capitalized other not, use the style of the journal NHESS!

Figures: Still the labels use different font sizes when comparing it to Fig 8. (See old review)

Open issue from the old review There mentioned as P11-12, section 4.3:

The authors give an answer to this comment, but have not included the purpose of the section. So I suggest to write the purpose of this section explicitly at the beginning which will help the reader to follow the results.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Sep 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by Editor) (14 Sep 2017) by Ricardo Trigo

AR by Florian Pantillon on behalf of the Authors (15 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Sep 2017) by Ricardo Trigo

AR by Florian Pantillon on behalf of the Authors (18 Sep 2017)

Short summary

The predictability of 25 historical winter storms over Europe is revisited by taking advantage of a homogeneous dataset of retrospective forecasts for the 1995–2015 period. The forecasts well predict the storms up to 2–4 days ahead only but also show clear potential for the early warning of storms up to 10 days ahead. However, the predictability of individual storms exhibits large variability and physical characteristics are identified for outliers with a poor predictability.