Reply to “Comments on ‘What Is the Predictability Limit of Midlatitude Weather?’”

In their comment, Žagar and Szunyogh raised concerns about a recent study by Zhang et al. that examined the predictability limit of midlatitude weather using two up-to-date global models. Zhang et al. showed that deterministic weather forecast may, at best, be extended by 5 days, assuming we could a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sun, Y. Qiang, Zhang, Fuqing, Magnusson, Linus, Buizza, Roberto, Chen, Jan-Huey, Emanuel, Kerry Andrew
Other Authors: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Meteorological Society 2020
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/127648
Description
Summary:In their comment, Žagar and Szunyogh raised concerns about a recent study by Zhang et al. that examined the predictability limit of midlatitude weather using two up-to-date global models. Zhang et al. showed that deterministic weather forecast may, at best, be extended by 5 days, assuming we could achieve minimal initial-condition uncertainty (e.g., 10% of current operational value) with a nearly perfect model. Žagar and Szunyogh questioned the methodology and the experiments of Zhang et al. Specifically, Žagar and Szunyogh raised issues regarding the effects of model error on the growth of the forecast uncertainty. They also suggested that estimates of the predictability limit could be obtained using a simple parametric model. This reply clarifies the misunderstandings in Žagar and Szunyogh and demonstrates that experiments conducted by Zhang et al. are reasonable. In our view, the model error concern in Žagar and Szunyogh does not apply to the intrinsic predictability limit, which is the key focus of Zhang et al. and the simple parametric model described in Žagar and Szunyogh does not serve the purpose of Zhang et al.