the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assimilation of surface pressure observations from personal weather stations in AROME-France
Alan Demortier
Marc Mandement
Vivien Pourret
Olivier Caumont
Abstract. Spatially dense surface pressure observations from personal weather stations (PWSs) have proved their ability to describe physical meteorological patterns, such as convective events, which are not visible with the only use of standard weather stations (SWSs). In this study, the benefit of assimilating PWS observations with the 3DVar and the 3DEnVar data assimilation schemes of the AROME-France model is evaluated over a 1-month period and during a heavy precipitation event in the south of France. Observations of surface pressure from PWSs are bias-corrected, quality-controlled, and thinned with a spacing equal to the horizontal dimension of an AROME-France grid cell. Over France, almost half of the 55 187 available PWS observations are assimilated, which is 129 times more than the number of assimilated SWSs observations. Despite the small advantages found from their assimilation with the 3DVar assimilation scheme, the 3DEnVar assimilation scheme shows systematic improvement and reduces by −10.3 % the root-mean-square departure in surface pressure between 1 h model forecasts and SWS observations over France. Significant improvement is observed up to 9 h of forecast in mean sea level pressure. Finally, when PWS observations are assimilated with the 3DEnVar assimilation scheme, a surface pressure anomaly generated by a mesoscale convective system – observed by PWSs and not visible without them – is successfully assimilated. In that case, the forecasts of location and temporal evolution of the mesoscale convective system as well as rainfall are closer to the observations when PWS observations are assimilated.
- Preprint
(5357 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Alan Demortier et al.
Status: open (until 28 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-103', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2023
reply
Review of "Assimilation of surface pressure observations from personal
weather stations in AROME-France"General points
The manuscript is generally well written. Like a number of other similar
studies the sample size is rather limited, and on its own too short to
prove that PWS data is beneficial.There is a comparison of impact in the 3DVar and 3DEnVar systems (the description/comparison is at lines 154-162). The PWS data has very little
impact in the former, but some benefit (on one extreme case) in the latter.
As I understand it 3DVar is the operational system and 3DEnVar is a test
system that may replace it at some point. In section 6 I would like to see
some discussion of likely future work/changes. When might 3DEnVar become
operational? When might use of Netatmo data become operational (or what
further testing is required)? Also what are the typical horizontal scales
in the analysis of surface pressure of the two systems.Using very high density data can cause convergence problems in a variational
analysis system. Wsa there any sign of such problems (eg in number of
iterations required and/or condition number)? What was the additional cost of
assimilating the PWS data?Personally I would have preferred to see the statistics in pressure units
(rather than geopotential units) throughout, but I can see the logic of using the
assimilated variable.I have made some suggestions to improve the English (but it is better than my French).
Detailed commentsline 1 [PWSs] 'have proved their ability' This seems too definite to me, if
fully proved why do we need another paper on the subject? Reword.Section 1
I suggest adding at least two of the four references below (two of which use Netatmo
data):Nipen, T.N.; Seierstad, I.A.; Lussana, C.; Kristiansen, J.; Hov, Ø. Adopting Citizen Observations in Operational Weather Prediction. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2020, 101, E43-E57.
Sgoff, C., Acevedo, W., Paschalidi, Z., Ulbrich, S., Bauernschubert, E., Kratzsch, T., et al. (2022) Assimilation of crowd-sourced surface observations over Germany in a regional weather prediction system. Q J R Meteorol Soc, 148(745), 1752-1767. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4276
Hahn, C.; Garcia-Marti, I.; Sugier, J.; Emsley, F.; Beaulant, A.-L.; Oram, L.; Strandberg, E.; Lindgren, E.; Sunter, M.; Ziska, F. Observations from Personal Weather Stations--EUMETNET Interests and Experience. Climate 2022, 10, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10120192
Bell, S.; Cornford, D.; Bastin, L. The state of automated amateur weather observations. Weather 2013, 68, 36-41
24 'combined to SWS' - 'combined with SWS'
26-27 'MC20 showed that PWS surface pressure observations allow multiplying by an
order of magnitude of 100 ... current state.' -
'MC20 showed that use of PWS allows approximately 100 times more surface pressure observations to be assimilated.' (Better English.) As noted in the general comments
in practice it is possible to have 'too many' observations and this should be
addressed somewhere in the manuscript.28 'These observations, when simply spatialized' - unclear, 'spatialized' not a word?
Possibly 'when regularly spaced'?36 'World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Regional Basic Observing Network (WMO, 2021)'
Instead of RBON I would refer to GBON (Global Basic Observing Network)
https://community.wmo.int/en/activity-areas/wigos/gbon
- a relatively recent concept.82 'Sect. 3' perhaps personal preference, I would write Section in full.
87 'represents 717 cycled hours of simulation for each experiment (without two time steps' -
'represents 717 hours for each experiment (excluding two time steps' suggestion
96 'on ships (sending SHIP reports)' - 'on ships and buoys'?Figure 1 caption:
'emitting' - 'providing'
'metropolitan France' - in English this means Paris or 'urban France', not the intention. Just 'France'.137 'J is incremental' - is it calculated at full forecast model resolution?
Sometimes the increments are at lower resolution. Please carify in the main text.160 'reduces the propagation of the innovation at a shorter spatial distance' -
'reduces the propagation of the innovation at larger distances' or
'limits the propagation of the innovation to shorter distances'.200 'Andersson et al., 1991' I would remove this reference, old OSEs are not
really useful now.201 'Making OSEs allows us to' - 'OSEs allow us to'
212 'interpolated at round hours, which concomitantly removes'
'interpolated to round hours, which also removes'
I don't understand the bit about removing sparse observations.217 'concomitantly' - delete
224 'the Figure 3' - delete 'the'
227ff 'To implement a geopotential bias correction for PWS data based on AROME ...
changes the altitude of the station in the assimilation scheme.'
One of the main causes of surface pressure biases is errors in the station altitude.
One cause of error in station altitude is use of uncorrected GPS heights:
"GNSS systems use a reference ellipsoid, and so the 'undulation of the geoid'
must be taken into account to get heights relative to sea level. (Appendix
2 describes a nearly 40 m error at a radiosonde site where this was not taken into account.)"
from
Pauley P, Ingleby B (2022) Assimilation of in-situ observations. In: Park SK, Xu L (eds) Data Assimilation for Atmospheric, Oceanic and Hydrologic Applications (Vol. IV). Springer.
Pages 293-371 in https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-77722-7248 '1 is randomly drawn' - 'one is randomly drawn'
248 'generally never' - 'not usually'
289 'perturbed' - 'unsettled'?
312 'meridian' - 'meridional'
Figure 6 caption 'improvement' - presumably with respect to the control?
Figure 7. The horizontal (average) lines partially obscure the score values.
They should either be removed entirely or restricted to the side of the figure.Figure 7 caption. Add that higher values are better.
359 'developed' - 'shown'
264 'dumping' - 'giving'
387 'which' - 'this'
Figure 8 caption 'black contours' - 'black edges' or 'black outlines'
300 'Once known ...' awkward. Perhaps 'Given the pressure increments the influence
on other variables is explored.'410 'Spalial size ...' - 'The surface pressure differences in Fig. 10e have
smaller scale than the analysis increments in Fig. 10a.''5.4 Impact on forecasted rainfall' - remove 'ed' from forecasted
473/4 'a VarBC method could be ... correct the bias of PWS observations.'
There are some caveats to this. Ideally there should be a good proportion
of (uncorrected) anchor observations, but SWS are swamped by PWS data.
How much this matters in practice for surface pressure isn't clear.Eyre, J.R. (2016), Observation bias correction schemes in data assimilation
systems: a theoretical study of some of their properties. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.,
142: 2284-2291. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2819NB. I was pleased to see the exploration of the bias correction in Appendix A.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-103-RC1
Alan Demortier et al.
Alan Demortier et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
231 | 57 | 11 | 299 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 231
- PDF: 57
- XML: 11
- Total: 299
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1