the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special Observing Period (SOP) Data for the Year of Polar Prediction site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP)
Abstract. The rapid changes occurring in the polar regions require an improved understanding of the processes that are driving the changes. At the same time increased human activities, such as marine navigation, resource exploitation, aviation, commercial fishing, and tourism, require reliable and relevant information. One of the primary goals of the World Meteorological Organization’s Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) Project is to improve the accuracy of numerical weather prediction (NWP) at high latitudes. During YOPP, two Canadian observatories were commissioned and equipped with new ground-based instruments for enhanced meteorological and system process observations that are considered to be “supersites” for addressing YOPP objectives, while other pre-existing supersites in Canada, the United States, Norway, Finland and Russia provided data from ongoing long-term observing programs. Data from these seven supersites were amalgamated and are being used to evaluate NWP systems from several international forecast centers and to perform meteorological process studies with the aim of improving NWP performance in the Polar Regions. In order to increase data useability and station interoperability, novel Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs) have been created for these seven international supersites over two Special Observing Periods (February to March 2018 and July to September 2018). All observations collected at the seven supersites were compiled into this new standardized NetCDF MODF format, simplifying the process of conducting pan-Arctic NWP verification and process evaluation studies. This paper describes the seven Arctic YOPP supersites, data collection and processing methods, and the novel MODF format and output files, which together comprise the observational contribution to the associated model intercomparison effort, termed YOPP supersite Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP). All YOPPsiteMIP MODFs are publicly accessible via the YOPP Data Portal (Whitehorse: https://doi.org/10.21343/a33e-j150, Iqaluit: https://doi.org/10.21343/yrnf-ck57, Sodankylä: https://doi.org/10.21343/m16p-pq17, Utqiaġvik: https://doi.org/10.21343/a2dx-nq55, Tiksi: https://doi.org/10.21343/5bwn-w881, Ny-Ålesund: https://doi.org/10.21343/y89m-6393, Eureka: https://doi.org/10.21343/r85j-tc61), hosted by MET Norway, with corresponding output from NWP models.
- Preprint
(1476 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-497', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-497/essd-2023-497-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-497', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Mar 2024
The manuscript aims to describe the data collection, quality control and organization during YOPP at seven sites located in the Arctic. The motivation is to have a database that is organize in a manner to facilitate the evaluation of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. The manuscript is well-written, but some information is missing, and some should be clarified. For the database, most of the databases seemed to still be under development are not available yet to be used for publications.
Major comments:
- The abstract contains long sentences (ex: Lines 30-33; line 37-42) and the aim of improving numerical weather prediction (NWP) is also mentioned twice. The abstract should be improved for clarity and to summarize the material presented in the manuscript.
- The goal of the study should be clarified. While reading the manuscript, I thought that the dataset also included the model outputs, but it is only the field measurements. To improve this, the paragraph starting at line 89, could be divided into 2. One paragraph about the MODF files and a shorter paragraph stating the goal of the manuscript. Also, is a little long and could be shorten. The first few sentences 107-111 seemed to be out of place. Should it be justifying the need to describing such database and, therefore, placed before stating the goal of the study. Additionally, when reading the conclusion, it seems that the authors are doing 2 things: 1) describing a new database and 2) describing a new way to organize/compress data. The goal should probably reflect this because there is a section in the manuscript describing the type of file.
- Description of the sites (section 2). I suggestion to use a standard structure for the description of each site. For example, the first sentence of the Whitehorse site is about the platform and instruments while not other site description has this information, at least at the beginning of the section. For each site, 1) there should be a photo of the site with the instruments used, 2) short geographical description, 3) the climatology and 4) other relevant information about the site. Since that the manuscript describe field data, photos of the sites/instruments should come before the grid points used by NWP.
- Figure 2 should probably be later in manuscript when the authors describe the structure of the datasets in sections 4 and 5 to not confuse the field data and the model data.
- The authors should carefully double check the use of full name/acronyms. These are most of the minor comments below.
Minor comments:
- Line 119: The sentence can start with “To properly...” and “It is important” can be deleted.
- Line 177: Add DOE in parenthesis after “Department of energy” and one can use the acronym later.
- Line 178: Define NOAA here and use the acronym later.
- Line 193: Use NOAA instead of the full name.
- Line 194: FMI is already defined.
- Line 271: I wonder if the author should add a Table to describe these. Then, the reader does not have to download the data to get the information.
- Lines 338 and 339: Use "m" instead of “meters”.
- Line 340: Add commas between “respectively”.
- Line 341: Change “2” for “two”.
- Line 347: The beginning of the sentence is awkward. Just start the sentence with “The present phase...” and add “used” after “concept”?
- Line 385: DOE/ARM already defined no need to write the full name.
- Line 464: I suggest removing “excellent”.
- Line 522: Use the acronym because they are already defined.
- Line 549: Delete “see” in front of Figures 3 to 6 and use e.g. instead? One can also delete “as an example”.
- Line 550: Delete “see”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-497-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-497', Zen Mariani, 22 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-497/essd-2023-497-AC1-supplement.pdf
Data sets
MODF for Iqaluit Airport, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada during YOPP SOP1 and SOP2 L. Huang, Z. Mariani, and R. Crawford https://doi.org/10.21343/yrnf-ck57
MODF for Erik Nielsen Airport, Whitehorse, Canada during YOPP SOP1 and SOP2 L. Huang, Z. Mariani, and R. Crawford https://doi.org/10.21343/a33e-j150
Merged observation data file for Sodankylä E. O'Connor https://doi.org/10.21343/m16p-pq17
MODF for Utqiaġvik, Alaska, during YOPP SOP1 and SOP2 E. Akish and S. Morris https://doi.org/10.21343/a2dx-nq55
MODF for Tiksi, Russia, during YOPP SOP1 and SOP2 E. Akish and S. Morris https://doi.org/10.21343/5bwn-w881
Merged Observatory Data File (MODF) for Ny Ålesund J. Holt https://doi.org/10.21343/y89m-6393
MODF for Eureka, Canada, during YOPP SOP1 and SOP2 E. Akish and S. Morris https://doi.org/10.21343/r85j-tc61
Model code and software
MODF Maker Toolkit M. Gallagher, J. Holt, and J. Tjernström https://gitlab.com/mdf-makers/mdf-toolkit
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
334 | 49 | 23 | 406 | 19 | 21 |
- HTML: 334
- PDF: 49
- XML: 23
- Total: 406
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1