the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving subseasonal forecast skill in the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model using soil moisture data assimilation
Abstract. This study emphasises the importance of soil moisture (SM) in subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) predictions at midlatitudes. To address this we introduce the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model Land (NorCPM-Land), a land reanalysis framework tailored for integration with the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model (NorCPM). NorCPM-Land assimilates blended SM data from the European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative into a 30-member offline simulation of the Community Land Model with fluxes from the coupled model. The assimilation of SM data reduces error in SM by 10.5 % when validated against independent SM observations. It also improves latent heat flux estimates, illustrating that the adjustment of underlying SM significantly augments the capacity to model land surface dynamics. We evaluate the added value of land initialisation for subseasonal predictions, by comparing the performance of hindcasts (retrospective prediction) using the standard NorCPM with a version where the land initial condition is taken from NorCPM-Land reanalysis. The hindcast covers the period 2000 to 2019 with four start dates per year. Land initialisation improves predictions up to a 3.5-month lead time for SM and a 1.5-month lead time for temperature and precipitation. The largest improvements are observed in regions with significant land-atmospheric coupling, such as the Central United States, the Sahel, and Central India. It also better captures extreme (high and low) temperature events in parts of Europe, the United States, and Asia, at mid and high latitudes. Overall, our study provides further evidence for the significant role of SM content in enhancing the accuracy of subseasonal predictions. This study provides an technique for improved land initialisation, utilising the same model employed in climate predictions.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(25404 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Jan 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available before the Discussions stage.In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal. I should note that, actually, your manuscript should not have been accepted in Discussions, given this lack of compliance with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, the DOI of the code (and another DOI for the dataset if necessary). Please, note that you must include a license for your model. If you do not include a license, nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Akhilesh S. Nair, 27 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Thank you for bringing the oversight to our attention. We have made the necessary corrections to the 'Code Availability' section of the manuscript. Below is the updated text, including the links to the updated repository for the model code and data, as well as information on the availability of the model source code.
Code availability: The source code for NorCPM1 used in this study can be obtained from https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014 or https: //github.com/BjerknesCPU/NorCPM.git (last access: 27 January 2024). The input data needed for running the code can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013. The land data assimilation module developed for NorCPM is archived on https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.10573785 (password: A12345). Specific details about NorCPM can be found in the website https://wiki.app.uib.no/norcpm/index.php/Norwegian_ Climate_Prediction_Model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jan 2024
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your quick reply, and your willingness to comply with our policy. I have checked your reply, unfortunately, it does not comply with our archival policy. You have stored your assets in the NIRD Research Data Archive, which we can not consider suitable for scientific publication. The NIRD RDA allows the authors of an asset (code or data) to remove it after request, simply by consulation with "stakeholders". We can not accept it, as the assets should be stored permanently and should not be able not be deleted by the authors and depositors. Also, it is not clear at all how the NIRD would identify and decide who are the stakeholders, or how they assure communication with them.
Therefore, please, move you assets to one of the repositories that we recommend.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Akhilesh S. Nair, 30 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Thank you for your comment. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the NIRD RDA. Our NorCPM code is stored on NIRD RDA. In November 2021, the NorCPM development team published an article in GMD, and the code was shared on the same NIRD repository.
We have also verified the archiving policy of NIRD with Adil Hasan from the NIRD RDA development team. He mentioned that the depositor or owner of the dataset can request deletion, but the archive would need to agree. This process would only be carried out in consultation with the data manager and other stakeholders of the dataset. Therefore, it's not possible for an old user to randomly request the deletion of a dataset (https://www.sigma2.no/research-data-archive-depositor-agreement).
In all cases, the archive would need to engage in discussions with the stakeholders before any dataset could be deleted.
Could you please confirm if this clarification eliminates any confusion, and if we should proceed with keeping the data on NIRD?
Best regards,
Akhilesh
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC2 -
CC1: 'Reply on AC2', Francois Counillon, 30 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Please also note that NIRD RDA is a program subsidised by the jointly financed by the Research Council of Norway for archiving research data from Norwegian researchers. Data only becomes eligible for deletion after 10 years from the publication date, after which there is a review process. If there is a compelling reason to keep the data from the community (an article for example), then the dataset will be kept for another period.
Best
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CC1 -
CEC3: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Feb 2024
Dear authors,
Thanks again for your reply. I understand what you translate in your replies, and you try to convince us that we should consider the NIRD RDA a suitable repository to comply with the purposes of our policy. However, we can only accept your arguments if they are supported by documentation and evidence. Arguing that somebody has previously published a paper using the NIRD RDA does not add anything. This could have happened because of oversight, a mistake. We have to ensure that this manuscript (GMD-2023-217) complies with the policy we are discussing here.
I have read the NIRD documentation available online and have yet to find support for your claims that a dataset would be hardly removed. You insist that the stakeholders would be contacted, but, for example, something needs to be said about how the NIRD will ensure the stakeholders are correctly identified. How can we be sure that GMD is recognised as a stakeholder for this dataset and that we can veto its removal?
You say that the NIRD stores repositories for ten years, and "If there is a compelling reason to keep the data from the community (an article for example), then the dataset will be kept for another period." First, ten years would not usually be enough to comply with our requirements; we typically require more extended periods (20 years). With the extension you mention, it could be ok. However, I have glanced at the NIRD RDA documentation, and I have not found evidence for your claim. This period or the extensions are not mentioned, and the funding sources expected to have supported it are not identified. Therefore, if I have overseen them, please provide a link to the NIRD RDA documentation or page containing the mentioned information. Another option is that if your claim is true but it is not published, you make the relevant information public. If what you have expressed is more an aim than an effort already funded, then we could not consider the NIRD RDA to comply with our policy.
Additionally, I have not found the NIRD RDA listed on FairSharing.org. If there is a record for it there, please let me know so I can check the quality standards that it meets.Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Akhilesh S. Nair, 08 Feb 2024
Dear Juan
Thank you for reaching out. We acknowledge your commitment to fair open data sharing and fully respect the journal's policies in this regard. Your concerns regarding data deposition have been conveyed to the leader group of the NIRD RDA. They have concurred that unless there is illegal content or copyright infringement, there is no compelling reason for depositors to delete a dataset. As such, datasets will be retained beyond the initial 10-year period.
The NIRD RDA is currently in the process of updating their Terms and Conditions, User Guide, and preservation plan to incorporate the points we mentioned in our previous correspondence. They anticipate completing this process by the coming Monday. Should you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact them directly at contact@sigma2.no.
Best
Akhilesh
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Akhilesh S. Nair, 08 Feb 2024
-
CEC3: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Feb 2024
-
CC1: 'Reply on AC2', Francois Counillon, 30 Jan 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Akhilesh S. Nair, 30 Jan 2024
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jan 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Akhilesh S. Nair, 27 Jan 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Patricia Lawston-Parker, 20 Feb 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, I've made the decision to close this Discussion and reject the paper on the basis of non-compliance with the code and data policy. My apologies that I allowed the paper to go to Discussion before the assets were provided in a suitable repository. Please note that our code, data, and archive policies are quite strict to ensure that the published results can be replicated by other studies, even many years in the future. Thank you for your submission and correspondence.
Best,
Patricia Lawston-Parker, topic editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-EC1 -
AC4: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Akhilesh S. Nair, 29 Feb 2024
With all due respect to the editors, we would like to express our disagreement with the accusation that our submission does not adhere to the journal's code and data sharing policies and contest the decision. Following the chief editor's criticism, we swiftly shared our code onto the NIRD research data archive, which is an archiving system funded by the Norwegian Research Council for such purpose. However, the editor claimed that NIRD was unsuitable for GMD data-sharing policies. We reviewed the GMD code and data-sharing guidelines and are convinced that NIRD RDA adheres to all of GMD's archive standards and policies. However, the NIRD RDA team also amended regulations in response to chief editor's suggestion (please see the detailed response of the NIRD team on the compliance of their research archive data). Despite everything we have tried to address chief editor’s comment and after four months, our manuscript was unexpectedly rejected without being reviewed, nor proper justification given for the rejection. We kindly request that the editorial board look into this matter.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Jan 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available before the Discussions stage.In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal. I should note that, actually, your manuscript should not have been accepted in Discussions, given this lack of compliance with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, the DOI of the code (and another DOI for the dataset if necessary). Please, note that you must include a license for your model. If you do not include a license, nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Akhilesh S. Nair, 27 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Thank you for bringing the oversight to our attention. We have made the necessary corrections to the 'Code Availability' section of the manuscript. Below is the updated text, including the links to the updated repository for the model code and data, as well as information on the availability of the model source code.
Code availability: The source code for NorCPM1 used in this study can be obtained from https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014 or https: //github.com/BjerknesCPU/NorCPM.git (last access: 27 January 2024). The input data needed for running the code can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013. The land data assimilation module developed for NorCPM is archived on https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.10573785 (password: A12345). Specific details about NorCPM can be found in the website https://wiki.app.uib.no/norcpm/index.php/Norwegian_ Climate_Prediction_Model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jan 2024
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your quick reply, and your willingness to comply with our policy. I have checked your reply, unfortunately, it does not comply with our archival policy. You have stored your assets in the NIRD Research Data Archive, which we can not consider suitable for scientific publication. The NIRD RDA allows the authors of an asset (code or data) to remove it after request, simply by consulation with "stakeholders". We can not accept it, as the assets should be stored permanently and should not be able not be deleted by the authors and depositors. Also, it is not clear at all how the NIRD would identify and decide who are the stakeholders, or how they assure communication with them.
Therefore, please, move you assets to one of the repositories that we recommend.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Akhilesh S. Nair, 30 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Thank you for your comment. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the NIRD RDA. Our NorCPM code is stored on NIRD RDA. In November 2021, the NorCPM development team published an article in GMD, and the code was shared on the same NIRD repository.
We have also verified the archiving policy of NIRD with Adil Hasan from the NIRD RDA development team. He mentioned that the depositor or owner of the dataset can request deletion, but the archive would need to agree. This process would only be carried out in consultation with the data manager and other stakeholders of the dataset. Therefore, it's not possible for an old user to randomly request the deletion of a dataset (https://www.sigma2.no/research-data-archive-depositor-agreement).
In all cases, the archive would need to engage in discussions with the stakeholders before any dataset could be deleted.
Could you please confirm if this clarification eliminates any confusion, and if we should proceed with keeping the data on NIRD?
Best regards,
Akhilesh
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC2 -
CC1: 'Reply on AC2', Francois Counillon, 30 Jan 2024
Dear Juan,
Please also note that NIRD RDA is a program subsidised by the jointly financed by the Research Council of Norway for archiving research data from Norwegian researchers. Data only becomes eligible for deletion after 10 years from the publication date, after which there is a review process. If there is a compelling reason to keep the data from the community (an article for example), then the dataset will be kept for another period.
Best
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CC1 -
CEC3: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Feb 2024
Dear authors,
Thanks again for your reply. I understand what you translate in your replies, and you try to convince us that we should consider the NIRD RDA a suitable repository to comply with the purposes of our policy. However, we can only accept your arguments if they are supported by documentation and evidence. Arguing that somebody has previously published a paper using the NIRD RDA does not add anything. This could have happened because of oversight, a mistake. We have to ensure that this manuscript (GMD-2023-217) complies with the policy we are discussing here.
I have read the NIRD documentation available online and have yet to find support for your claims that a dataset would be hardly removed. You insist that the stakeholders would be contacted, but, for example, something needs to be said about how the NIRD will ensure the stakeholders are correctly identified. How can we be sure that GMD is recognised as a stakeholder for this dataset and that we can veto its removal?
You say that the NIRD stores repositories for ten years, and "If there is a compelling reason to keep the data from the community (an article for example), then the dataset will be kept for another period." First, ten years would not usually be enough to comply with our requirements; we typically require more extended periods (20 years). With the extension you mention, it could be ok. However, I have glanced at the NIRD RDA documentation, and I have not found evidence for your claim. This period or the extensions are not mentioned, and the funding sources expected to have supported it are not identified. Therefore, if I have overseen them, please provide a link to the NIRD RDA documentation or page containing the mentioned information. Another option is that if your claim is true but it is not published, you make the relevant information public. If what you have expressed is more an aim than an effort already funded, then we could not consider the NIRD RDA to comply with our policy.
Additionally, I have not found the NIRD RDA listed on FairSharing.org. If there is a record for it there, please let me know so I can check the quality standards that it meets.Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-CEC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Akhilesh S. Nair, 08 Feb 2024
Dear Juan
Thank you for reaching out. We acknowledge your commitment to fair open data sharing and fully respect the journal's policies in this regard. Your concerns regarding data deposition have been conveyed to the leader group of the NIRD RDA. They have concurred that unless there is illegal content or copyright infringement, there is no compelling reason for depositors to delete a dataset. As such, datasets will be retained beyond the initial 10-year period.
The NIRD RDA is currently in the process of updating their Terms and Conditions, User Guide, and preservation plan to incorporate the points we mentioned in our previous correspondence. They anticipate completing this process by the coming Monday. Should you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact them directly at contact@sigma2.no.
Best
Akhilesh
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Akhilesh S. Nair, 08 Feb 2024
-
CEC3: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Feb 2024
-
CC1: 'Reply on AC2', Francois Counillon, 30 Jan 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Akhilesh S. Nair, 30 Jan 2024
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jan 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Akhilesh S. Nair, 27 Jan 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Patricia Lawston-Parker, 20 Feb 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, I've made the decision to close this Discussion and reject the paper on the basis of non-compliance with the code and data policy. My apologies that I allowed the paper to go to Discussion before the assets were provided in a suitable repository. Please note that our code, data, and archive policies are quite strict to ensure that the published results can be replicated by other studies, even many years in the future. Thank you for your submission and correspondence.
Best,
Patricia Lawston-Parker, topic editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-217-EC1 -
AC4: 'Comment on gmd-2023-217', Akhilesh S. Nair, 29 Feb 2024
With all due respect to the editors, we would like to express our disagreement with the accusation that our submission does not adhere to the journal's code and data sharing policies and contest the decision. Following the chief editor's criticism, we swiftly shared our code onto the NIRD research data archive, which is an archiving system funded by the Norwegian Research Council for such purpose. However, the editor claimed that NIRD was unsuitable for GMD data-sharing policies. We reviewed the GMD code and data-sharing guidelines and are convinced that NIRD RDA adheres to all of GMD's archive standards and policies. However, the NIRD RDA team also amended regulations in response to chief editor's suggestion (please see the detailed response of the NIRD team on the compliance of their research archive data). Despite everything we have tried to address chief editor’s comment and after four months, our manuscript was unexpectedly rejected without being reviewed, nor proper justification given for the rejection. We kindly request that the editorial board look into this matter.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
533 | 134 | 48 | 715 | 34 | 43 |
- HTML: 533
- PDF: 134
- XML: 48
- Total: 715
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 43
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1