Intercomparison of four algorithms for detecting tropical cyclones using ERA5

Bourdin, Stella; Fromang, Sébastien; Dulac, William; Cattiaux, Julien; Chauvin, Fabrice

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6759-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6759-2022

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6759-2022

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

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

Methods for assessment of models

|

06 Sep 2022

Methods for assessment of models |

| 06 Sep 2022

Intercomparison of four algorithms for detecting tropical cyclones using ERA5

Stella Bourdin, Sébastien Fromang, William Dulac, Julien Cattiaux, and Fabrice Chauvin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Sep 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Apr 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Referee comments on egusphere-2022-179', Malcolm J. Roberts, 10 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-179/egusphere-2022-179-CC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-179-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Stella Bourdin, 29 Jul 2022
  
  Dear Dr. Roberts,
  We thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. It helped us take a step back on our manuscript and better formulate our arguments. We are convinced it will make our article more valuable and robust. In the attached document, we address your comments. All technical corrections have been taken into account.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-179-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-179', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jun 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-179/egusphere-2022-179-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-179-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Stella Bourdin, 29 Jul 2022
  
  We thank the reviewer for investing time in reviewing our manuscript and for their constructive comment.
  
  It helped us improve the manuscript and lay our argumentation in a more clear way.
  Attached is a document addressing the reviewer's comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-179-AC2
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-179', Travis O'Brien, 15 Jul 2022

Dear Dr. Bourdin et al.,
Please note that one of the reviewers posted their comments as a community comment (CC1) and one posted it as a reviewer comment (RC1). I am working with Copernicus editorial staff to close the discussion stage, at which point you will get formal instructions for proceeding. In the interim, you should prepare to submit formal responses to both reviewers and you should prepare a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all sets of comments.
Thank you!
-Travis-

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-179-EC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by Stella Bourdin on behalf of the Authors (29 Jul 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Jul 2022) by Travis O'Brien

AR by Stella Bourdin on behalf of the Authors (02 Aug 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

When studying tropical cyclones in a large dataset, one needs objective and automatic procedures to detect their specific pattern. Applying four different such algorithms to a reconstruction of the climate, we show that the choice of the algorithm is crucial to the climatology obtained. Mainly, the algorithms differ in their sensitivity to weak storms so that they provide different frequencies and durations. We review the different options to consider for the choice of the tracking methodology.