Rescuing historical weather observations improves quantification of severe windstorm risks

Hawkins, Ed; Brohan, Philip; Burgess, Samantha N.; Burt, Stephen; Compo, Gilbert P.; Gray, Suzanne L.; Haigh, Ivan D.; Hersbach, Hans; Kuijjer, Kiki; Martínez-Alvarado, Oscar; McColl, Chesley; Schurer, Andrew P.; Slivinski, Laura; Williams, Joanne

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1465-2023

Articles | Volume 23, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1465-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1465-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 23, issue 4

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

24 Apr 2023

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 24 Apr 2023

Rescuing historical weather observations improves quantification of severe windstorm risks

Ed Hawkins, Philip Brohan, Samantha N. Burgess, Stephen Burt, Gilbert P. Compo, Suzanne L. Gray, Ivan D. Haigh, Hans Hersbach, Kiki Kuijjer, Oscar Martínez-Alvarado, Chesley McColl, Andrew P. Schurer, Laura Slivinski, and Joanne Williams

Download

Final revised paper (published on 24 Apr 2023)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 27 Oct 2022)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1045', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Nov 2022
The paper analyses the Ulysses storm in 1903, one of the strongest storms in UK history. This storm is analysed in 20CRv3, and then the assimilation is rerun with a lot of newly rescued observations, and further with an improved inflation scheme in the assimilation. Results show that the improved 20CRv3 produces a stronger storm, with stronger winds and higher probability for "sting jets" and related surface wind feature. The authors also analyse precipitation. When coupling a storm surge model to the reanalysis, the tide gauge record in the area of Liverpool is better depicted. Overall this is a very nice case study of a historical storm, a very nice demonstration of the power of numerical methods, and a very nice illustration of the usefulness of rescuing observations. The paper is well written, though a bit unconventionally structured. I only have a couple of small questions.

First of all: What a nice case! This is a text book storm.

I am missing more information on the additionally included data (number of new measurements per day etc.), their QC processing. What was the observation error assigned? Also it would be relevant to include marine data in the coverage plots.

This concerns specifically also the tide gauge record. The authors mention that the QC is not yet doe and this work is in process, but t is hard to get a feeling for the error.

How does the assimilation system digtest the quite massive increase in the input? Given the decreased spread, are some of the "original" observations now rejected or vice versa?

Fig. 3: Is the ensemble mean of the version "with new data" captured in the ensemble spread of the "raw" 20CRv3? This would be interesting for useres that cannot rerun 20CRv3. The figures in the Appendix on the spread and RMSE ratio are nice, but do not directly answer the question for this case.

Say a bit more on the storm surge model already in the main text (at least mention the resolution and start of integration).

L. 367: https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_7c59f237-7add-4d78-9c99-4e4210a926e1/ produces a "not found" in my browser

The reference list is a it messy (punctiation, initials, use of "et al.", use of "and", "&" or nothing, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Ed Hawkins, 03 Feb 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1045/egusphere-2022-1045-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1045-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Feb 2023) by Joaquim G. Pinto

AR by Ed Hawkins on behalf of the Authors (09 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (02 Mar 2023) by Joaquim G. Pinto

AR by Ed Hawkins on behalf of the Authors (29 Mar 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (12361 KB)
Full-text XML

Executive editor

This paper clearly demonstrates the value of the rescue of historical meteorological data, as they help to come to a better assessment of the characteristics of events in the past. Using such data, the study is able to give evidence for physical processes of particular relevance for the intensity of an historical hazardous event. The approach makes an assessment of such events in the context of climate change and variability possible.