IWIN: the Isfjorden Weather Information Network

Frank, Lukas; Jonassen, Marius Opsanger; Remes, Teresa; Schalamon, Florina Roana; Stenlund, Agnes

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4219-2023

Articles | Volume 15, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4219-2023

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4219-2023

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

Articles | Volume 15, issue 9

Data description paper

|

25 Sep 2023

Data description paper |

| 25 Sep 2023

IWIN: the Isfjorden Weather Information Network

Lukas Frank, Marius Opsanger Jonassen, Teresa Remes, Florina Roana Schalamon, and Agnes Stenlund

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Sep 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Apr 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CEC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-99', Ken Mankoff, 25 Apr 2023

I am concerned with how this manuscript fits within ESSD. Per the paper itself, it is not a data description paper. From L49, "The primary goal of this paper is to provide documentation on the instrumental setup of IWIN." The current paper does not describe the data. Further out-of-scope, it uses the data to describe various weather events from page 10 to 15, something we normally discourage.
I think with little effort this paper could be published in another journal - withdraw is an option. If it stays in ESSD and meets the ESSD Editorial Guidelines https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2275/2018/ it would take quite a bit of work. I encourage the authors to do that work.
There is currently *no validation*. ESSD expects *extensive* validation. Are there weather stations nearby that can be used? If you turned each of the weather examples into a validation, that would be impressive, and a lot of work. You could do fine with half of the examples.
I'm also uncertain with how certain you are of your small uncertainties. Are there really no additional uncertainties beyond the stated manufacturer uncertainties? Are you deploying these in the expected settings and environment? A ship structure may (or may not) not influence the results, but what about a bright red lighthouse roof? Also, I question citing a masters thesis for the 'no error from ship' claim. That thesis appears to focus on wind direction, as does your almost entire paragraph of 'uncertainty'. What about T? RH? P? Fig 6.2 of that masters thesis appears to show *significant* disturbance in streamline plots - do these impact P or T? I would presume so.
Finally, in addition to describing the data product, it would be good to describe the data files. What format? What metadata? What are your CSV columns? How are the data processed? Where is the software that did this processing?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-99-CEC1
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-99', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2023

This manuscript describes a new weather observation network in Svalbard as well as some examples of local meteorological features observed by the network. The manuscript is well written and largely provides all relevant information about the network. I offer a few minor comments / suggestions below but otherwise find this manuscript suitable for publication after minor revisions.

Minor comments
Mention content of section 3 in last paragraph of section 1.
Table 1: In addition to the measurement altitude above sea level please include the height above ground level for each lighthouse station.
Table 2: Provide station height above sea level for each ship-mounted station.
Section 3: Is icing a concern and what impact does it have on the sensors and measurement errors?
It would be useful to give a brief summary of how the measurements are made. For example, are the wind measurements made via a sonic approach?
Line 158-160: I was unable to find a way to download or visualize the IWIN data from the link provided in this dataset. Please provide additional details about how a user can easily access and visualize this data.
Line 171: Figure referenced here should be 10a not 3a. On line 175 Figure reference should be 10b not 3b.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-99-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-99', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 May 2023

See supplement

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-99-RC2
AC1: 'Final Author Comment on essd-2023-99', Lukas Frank, 11 Jul 2023

Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your input on our manuscript. Please find our collected responses to your comments in the attached document.
On behalf of all coauthors,
Best regards,
Lukas Frank

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-99-AC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by Lukas Frank on behalf of the Authors (11 Jul 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes

EF by Anna Mirena Feist-Polner (20 Jul 2023) Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 Jul 2023) by David Carlson

Thanks for patience and positive changes. Thanks for using ESSD.

Small technical issues for author consideration. Most changes can occur at proof stage.

Need Zenodo link at end of abstract. That link should probably take the form of a valid citation: e.g. Lukas et al. 2023 (‘title of data set on Zenodo'), Zenodo DOI. Simple sentence, slightly modified from line 452, copied and pasted ahead of wherever you currently mention Thredds source and MetNO ADC. Lukas et al. 2023 citation will ensure that users credit exact source from exact authors. These small copy/paste changes can occur at proof stage.

Data transfer to UNIS occurs every 2 (mobile) and 30 (lighthouse) minutes (line 128). But, later (line 149), reader encounters transfer from UNIS to MetNO every 5 minutes. Not clear to this reader how one transfers 30 min data every 5 minutes?

In common with 2nd review, I still do not trust lab calibration at 20C for sensors used in much colder environments. Operating range of -40 to +70 (line 159, absurd on high end) seems not helpful in terms of accuracy. Readers might appreciate more caution here (e.g. laboratory. calibrations available but not sufficient) with reference to valid inter-comparisons with MetNO stations as described in section 4.1?

Repeat concern by several reviewers and commenters: do we really need four examples? Section 5 feels more like a research journal, not a data journal? If authors want to keep four examples, a preface mentioning preliminary nature with need for additional data confirmation might seem appropriate? If spatial variability remains high for this environment, one might expect need for additional data to confirm preliminary obs?

Hide

AR by Lukas Frank on behalf of the Authors (07 Aug 2023) Manuscript

Short summary

The Isfjorden Weather Information Network (IWIN) provides continuous meteorological near-surface observations from Isfjorden in Svalbard. The network combines permanent automatic weather stations on lighthouses along the coast line with mobile stations on board small tourist cruise ships regularly trafficking the fjord during spring to autumn. All data are available online in near-real time. Besides their scientific value, IWIN data crucially enhance the safety of field activities in the region.