Assimilation of Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) Lightning Imager (LI) pseudo-observations in AROME-France – proof of concept

Erdmann, Felix; Caumont, Olivier; Defer, Eric

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2821-2023

Articles | Volume 23, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2821-2023

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2821-2023

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

Articles | Volume 23, issue 8

Research article

|

18 Aug 2023

Research article |

| 18 Aug 2023

Assimilation of Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) Lightning Imager (LI) pseudo-observations in AROME-France – proof of concept

Felix Erdmann, Olivier Caumont, and Eric Defer

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Aug 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 28 Jul 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-637', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2022

Review of the paper

Assimilation of Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) Lightning Imager (LI) observations in AROME-France – Proof of Concept

By:

Felix Erdmann, Olivier Caumont, and Eric Defer

General comment

This paper shows a proof of concept of a method to assimilate lightning in the AEROME model. The method is based on the 1D-3Dvar method elaborated by Caumont et al. (2010) and used for radar reflectivity data assimilation. A function to compute the FED (Flash Extent Density) is proposed based on the graupel mass simulated by AEROME model.

The paper is well written and interesting and I suggest the publication of the paper with some corrections. These corrections are suggested as sticky noted to the pdf of the paper.

Major points

It is not very clear what it is shown in Figure 3. In the text explanation it is stated that the graupel mass column is considered. The value should be mm. In the Figure there is graupel mass [kg]. Please clarify better.

Section 7.1: I suggest to add a Figure to support the discussion.

Sections 7.1.3: It is important to highlight that this result is not general because of the limited number of cases considered in this paper.

Minor points

There are several minor points that the authors can consider before the publication of this paper. They are reported as sticky notes to the attached pdf of the paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-637-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Felix Erdmann, 31 Mar 2023
  
  Response to RC 1
  We thank the anonymous reviewer for her/his valuable feedback. We like to hear that the referee finds our work interesting and supports a publication after some corrections. We address the major points in the following in italic font and answer the sticky notes in the attached PDF file.
  
  Stated line numbers refer to the previously submitted manuscript to be consistent with the comments below.
  
  Major points
  
  It is not very clear what it is shown in Figure 3. In the text explanation it is stated that the graupel mass column is considered. The value should be mm. In the Figure there is graupel mass [kg]. Please clarify better.
  
  We stated that "column integrated graupel mass" (line 188) is used, as suggested by Deierling et al. (2008). We believe that the unit kg is correct in the plot and consistent with the explanation.
  Section 7.1: I suggest to add a Figure to support the discussion.
  
  We added maps of 500 hPa pressure and a surface analysis on 08 Aug. 2018, 1200UTC to support the description (as new Figure 5).
  Sections 7.1.3: It is important to highlight that this result is not general because of the limited number of cases considered in this paper.
  
  The section about the FSS was revised accordingly.
  
  Minor points
  
  Please see the answers to the sticky notes in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-637-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-637', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2022

See review in attached PDF file.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-637-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Felix Erdmann, 31 Mar 2023
  
  A point-by-point response to the referee comment RC2 is provided in the attached file Author_response_egusphere-2022-637_002_RC2.pdf.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-637-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (25 Apr 2023) by Gregor C. Leckebusch

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (26 Apr 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 May 2023) by Gregor C. Leckebusch

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 May 2023)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 May 2023)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Jun 2023) by Gregor C. Leckebusch

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (27 Jun 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (28 Jun 2023) by Gregor C. Leckebusch

AR by Felix Erdmann on behalf of the Authors (29 Jun 2023)

Short summary

This work develops a novel lightning data assimilation (LDA) technique to make use of Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) Lightning Imager (LI) data in a regional, convection-permitting numerical weather prediction model. The approach combines statistical Bayesian and 3-dimensional variational methods. Our LDA can promote missing convection and suppress spurious convection in the initial state of the model, and it has similar skill to the operational radar data assimilation for rainfall forecasts.

Assimilation of Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) Lightning Imager (LI) pseudo-observations in AROME-France – proof of concept

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection