Development of a forecast-oriented kilometre-resolution ocean–atmosphere coupled system for western Europe  and sensitivity study for a severe weather situation

Pianezze, Joris; Beuvier, Jonathan; Lebeaupin Brossier, Cindy; Samson, Guillaume; Faure, Ghislain; Garric, Gilles

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1301-2022

Articles | Volume 22, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1301-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1301-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 4

Research article

|

12 Apr 2022

Research article |

| 12 Apr 2022

Development of a forecast-oriented kilometre-resolution ocean–atmosphere coupled system for western Europe and sensitivity study for a severe weather situation

Joris Pianezze, Jonathan Beuvier, Cindy Lebeaupin Brossier, Guillaume Samson, Ghislain Faure, and Gilles Garric

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Apr 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Aug 2021)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2021-226', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Sep 2021

See attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-226-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Joris Pianezze, 09 Dec 2021
  
  We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for comments and suggestions.
  
  Please find attached in the supplement, our specific reply to comments for both RC1 and RC2 and the draft of the reviewed paper with the modifications highlighted in red.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-226-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2021-226', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2021
I sugget to homogenize the way you present the references to used upstream data. For example, introducing ECMWF IFS instead of simply IFS (ln. 123) or global-IFS (which I guess it is the same). IBI is also cited as IBI36: better to use one unique reference.

the user may not know what IBI is. I see you added correct references, however since your model is focusing on a different implementation (since the spatial domain is wider) I suggest to remove in Section 2.2 the specificiation of where the IBI boundary was or simply specify why you are proposing this new spatial domain more clearly.

you refer to CMEMS many times. It would be good to introduce it once, at the beginning, and cleaning the paper from redundant references like in Section 4.1.1 ln. 261-262.

It is clear you decided to split presentation of results between validation and evaluation of impact. The impression I got is that in the evaluation of the OA model, the explanation can be a bit confused since you present also forced experiments in the plots: in fact, in the second part of the section where you present the impact of OA coupling, you use the previous plots and explain it. I would focus on discussing evaluation of the OA coupling system directly when you describe the impact, so something like this:

4.1 Validation and evaluation of OA coupling on ocean forecast highlighting if and how OA improves skills wrt forced system

4.2. Impact of OA coupling on the atmospheric forecast

ln. 141-143: could you please specify the dataset/reference you used for the river runoff?

ln. 236: which bulk are you using in the OCE-ifs? It would be nice to specify them.

ln. 261-263, the SST L3 you are using is missing the reference: could you add it? I think you are using SST daily at night-time and not SST daily average observation: is it?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-226-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Joris Pianezze, 09 Dec 2021
  
  We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for comments and suggestions.
  
  Please find attached in the supplement, our specific reply to comments for both RC1 and RC2 and the draft of the reviewed paper with the modifications highlighted in red.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-226-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (04 Jan 2022) by Piero Lionello

Dear Dr. Pianezze and Beuvier:
Based on the reviewers’ evaluations and your replies in the interactive discussion, your manuscript will be reconsidered after a major revision (further review by editor and referees). You are requested to submit a revised version of your manuscript, where your text is modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions and the interactive discussion. The final publication of your manuscript in NHESS is conditional upon your answers to the reviewers and the changes in the revised version of your manuscript. Please, submit together with the revised version, a copy of your manuscript where all your changes are annotated and the list of your detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments.

I am particularly concerned by your admission that this study does not represent a validation of the high resolution coupled system, but a sensitivity study, because only one case study is considered (therefore the statistics is quite limited). The sensitivity of the forecast to the coupling and to the resolution is well known in the literature and it would not justify a publication in a high-level journal. An interesting study should explain whether there is an improvement with respect to the reference uncoupled forecast. It seems that you have already some encouraging results of the SST forecast but none on the weather forecast. However, you explain that the effect of changing the atmospheric model is much larger than that of the coupling. This also somehow reduces the relevance of your results for supporting the use of this coupled model system.

Looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript, the replies to these comments and to those of the reviewers
Best regards
Piero Lionello

Hide

AR by Joris Pianezze on behalf of the Authors (06 Jan 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Jan 2022) by Piero Lionello

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (15 Jan 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Jan 2022)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (19 Feb 2022) by Piero Lionello

Dear Dr. Pianezze and Beuvier :
both reviewers are positive about your manuscript.

However, reviewer #2 is has two residual minor comments and is willing to read again your manuscript

Moreover, before sending your text to reviewer #2, I have the following suggestions. In case you do not agree, or I have misunderstood the text, please explain. My suggestions are:

line 10 : replace “persistent” with “constant”… otherwise clarify what you mean with “persistent”

line 11-14 I suggest to replace
“When compared to the operational-like ocean forecast, simulated oceanic fields show a large sensitivity to coupling. Forced ocean simulations highlight that this sensitivity is mainly controlled by the change in the atmospheric model used to drive NEMO (AROME vs. ECMWF IFS operational forecast).”
with
“Simulated oceanic fields show a large sensitivity to coupling when compared to the operational-like ocean forecast. However, forced ocean simulations highlight that this sensitivity is mainly controlled by the change in the atmospheric model used to drive NEMO (AROME vs. ECMWF IFS operational) forecast), and not by the coupling itself.”

Line 14 The oceanic boundary layer depths can vary by more than 40%.
It is not clear respect to which reference. please rephrase.

Please ADD to the present text with track track changes also these modifications and mark them in red, without removing the previous ones. In this way all your changes with respect to the previous version will be highlighted.

Formally this will be treated as a major revision (because your revised manuscript will be sent to a reviewer). However, in practice, all comment s are minor in my opinion.

Best regards
Piero Lionello

Hide

AR by Joris Pianezze on behalf of the Authors (04 Mar 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 Mar 2022) by Piero Lionello

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Mar 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Mar 2022)

ED: Publish as is (18 Mar 2022) by Piero Lionello

Short summary

Most numerical weather and oceanic prediction systems do not consider ocean–atmosphere feedback during forecast, and this can lead to significant forecast errors, notably in cases of severe situations. A new high-resolution coupled ocean–atmosphere system is presented in this paper. This forecast-oriented system, based on current regional operational systems and evaluated using satellite and in situ observations, shows that the coupling improves both atmospheric and oceanic forecasts.