Optimization of NWP model closure parameters using total energy norm of forecast error as a target

Ollinaho, P.; Järvinen, H.; Bauer, P.; Laine, M.; Bechtold, P.; Susiluoto, J.; Haario, H.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1889-2014

Articles | Volume 7, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1889-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1889-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 5

Development and technical paper

|

02 Sep 2014

Development and technical paper |

| 02 Sep 2014

Optimization of NWP model closure parameters using total energy norm of forecast error as a target

P. Ollinaho, H. Järvinen, P. Bauer, M. Laine, P. Bechtold, J. Susiluoto, and H. Haario

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Sep 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Dec 2013)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2542: 'comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2014
- AC C2936: 'Letter to Referee #1', Pirkka Ollinaho, 02 Apr 2014
RC C2764: 'Review of: Total energy norm in NWP closure parameter optimization', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Mar 2014
- AC C2953: 'Letter to Referee #2', Pirkka Ollinaho, 02 Apr 2014
  - AC C2957: 'Missing figure', Pirkka Ollinaho, 02 Apr 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Pirkka Ollinaho on behalf of the Authors (02 Apr 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Apr 2014) by Adrian Sandu

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 May 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper is suitable for publication. However you may
consider 2 further comments:

1)

I have proposed to add a further figure to show the
latitudinal/vertical distribution of energy norm reduction. The
authers provided the respective figure for my info but only added a
description of the vertical distribution in the text because the
paper is already heavy with figures.

I would still recommend to add this figure because it illustrates
a key conclusion of the article: using the total energy norm
as a target is superior to other choices because it accounts for
forecast deviations in all levels.

If the figure is included the physical units should be given in the
legend and a linear scaling instead of the logarithmic scale in the
vertical may be considered in order to reflect the relative
contributions to the integral of the norm. (see also the remark
below).

2)

Section 3.1, page 6, line 10:

Text:
"dp is the pressure difference between two pressure levels, we use
dp=1 throughout the atmosphere in order to emphasize the surface
pressure term"

"dp" is the differential used in the vertical integration of the
energy norm. If the integral is approximated on a spatial grid (as
done here) the integral should be the sum of the integrand at each
grid-point times "dp", with "dp" being the thickness of the model
layer (as stated in the first part of the above sentence). However
if dp=1 each model layer would enter with the same weight,
regardless of its thickness. This is contradictory and should be
clarified. If the latter is the case (dp=constant) it would be
essential to give information of the model layer thickness in the
paper because that would determine the weight of the target norm
at different levels.

Also "w" in equation (3) should have a physical unit (J should be
dimensionless).

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (22 Jun 2014)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (22 Jun 2014) by Adrian Sandu

AR by Pirkka Ollinaho on behalf of the Authors (27 Jun 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Jul 2014) by Adrian Sandu

AR by Pirkka Ollinaho on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2014)