the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Apr 2022
First implementation of a new cross-disciplinary observation strategy for heavy precipitation events from formation to flooding
Abstract. Heavy Precipitation Events (HPE) are the result of enormous quantities of water vapour being transported to a limited area. HPE rainfall rates and volumes cannot not be fully stored on and below the land surface, often leading to floods with short forecast lead times that may cause damage to humans, properties, and infrastructure. Towards an improved scientific understanding of the entire process chain from HPE formation to flooding at the catchment scale, we propose an elaborated event-triggered observation concept. It combines flexible mobile observing systems out of the fields of meteorology, hydrology and geophysics with stationary networks to capture atmospheric transport processes, heterogeneous precipitation patterns, land surface and subsurface storage processes, and runoff dynamics.
As part of the Helmholtz Research Infrastructure MOSES (Modular Observation Solutions for Earth Systems), the added value of our observation strategy is exemplarily shown by its first implementation in the Mueglitz river basin (210 km2), a headwater catchment of the Elbe in the Eastern Ore Mountains with historical and recent extreme flood events. Punctual radiosonde observations combined with continuous microwave radiometer measurements and back trajectory calculations deliver information about the moisture sources, initiation and development of HPE X-Band radar observations calibrated by ground based disdrometers and rain gauges deliver precipitation information with high spatial resolution. Runoff measurements in small sub-catchments complement the discharge times series of the operational network of gauging stations. Closing the catchment water balance at the HPE scale, however, is still challenging. While evapotranspiration is of less importance when studying short term convective HPE, information on the spatial distribution and on temporal variations of soil moisture and total water storage by stationary and roving cosmic ray measurements and by hybrid terrestrial gravimetry offer prospects for improved quantification of the storage term of the water balance equation. Overall, the cross-disciplinary observation strategy presented here opens up new ways towards an integrative and scale-bridging understanding of event dynamics.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(8590 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-131', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2022
OVERVIEW
The study describes in details a new cross-disciplinary observation strategy for monitoring and understanding heavy precipitation events. The strategy has been applied in a small catchment in Germany during the summer of 2019.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The paper is well written and clear. The topic is relevant as we need detailed monitoring strategies to improve our monitoring and understanding of the formation of extreme events from their formation to flooding. The authors have made a tremendous effort for setting up a measurement strategy, with good and interesting results. The paper is easily readable and clear. I have listed here two minor comments that the authors might consider for improving the paper readability.
- The paper is too long for me. I believe the authors may consider the reduction of some parts, avoiding to go too much in details in the description of the technological aspects of the measurement apparatus. Likely these descriptions can be moved in the supplementary material.
- The HYDRATE project (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/37024), ended in 2010, has been specifically designed to monitor flash floods and hence with a purpose very close to that addressed by the authors in this study, and in the future monitoring campaigns. I would suggest to make a link to this project also to benefit from the experience gained.
RECOMMENDATION
On this basis, I found the topic of the paper relevant, and I suggest a minor revision before the paper can be published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-131-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Wieser, 13 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Review of hess-2022-131 by Rolf Hut', Rolf Hut, 10 Jun 2022
The authors present the results of an extensive field work campaign intended to capture data on heavy precipitation events (HPE). The document describes many aspects of this campaign and this is directly my top concern with the document: it lacks focus. I have identified three major topics in the manuscript which are all independently more than worhty enough of their own manuscript, but together create a manuscript where it is unclear for the readership what they can take away from reading it.
The three topics I have identified are (and let it be said that maybe the authors would have come to a different list)
- 'an elaborated event-triggered observation concept' (line 46)
- 'closing the catchment water balance at the HPE scale' (line 58)
- 'new measurement system based on terrestrial gravimetry' (line 106)
I would suggest to chose one of these topics and focus the paper on that and write two seperate (short) papers on the other two topics. This gives the readership a better choice in what to read (amids the never ending mountain of literature to read and keep up with). I fully understand this is not something the authors are happy to hear given the amount of work involved, but I trully believe it will lead to a better collection of papers. If the choice is made to stick with all of this information in one paper, I would strongly suggest to organize the paper along the lines of the three topics mentioned above. I will leave, as standard, the decision on how to proceed with the editor.
Regarding the three different subject I do have some comments that the authors might want to address when rewriting the paper.
on 'an elaborated event-triggered observation concept'
I really like the idea of the multi tier observations where based on forecasts the team switches to 'intensive monitoring'. It would really help the readership if the 'pre-defined environmenta; parameters' (line 144) used to make that decision was shared and even more: if the design process to come up with these parameters was shared for others to use in their own campaigns. I believe that this is a vital part of the innovation of this part of the manuscript and should be elaborated on. Related to this is that the colors in table 1 need explenation: when and how is the final decision for an IOP made based on the inputs?
The observation methods chosen cover a wide range of athmospheric and hydrologic interesting parameters that relate to HPE and the water balance in general. However, it is unclear what the selection of instruments is based on. Line 170 states that "To determine the water balance components according to Fig. 1 microwave radiometers, Doppler lidar and ardio soundings provide information on the state of the atmosphere as well as changes in water vapo distribution..." Fig. 1 contains many more processes, so the authors need to present a justification on how the instruments used in the campaign were chosen. And honestly: "we had these amazing things and wanted to use them" would be justification enough in my book, but that has to be acknowledged.
On 'closing the catchment water balance at the HPE scale'
I first and foremost want to stress that I 'm strongly against 'closing the water balance' as a goal in and of itself. Given the point based nature of most of our measurements, as well as the impossibility to measure a lot of the processes that transport water into and out of catchments, I don't see how we can ever 'close' the balance. However, as a thinking concept it can still serve its purpose. Having said that, I was surprised to see ERA5 used as part of the precipitable water calculation. If a re-analyses data source, based on both model and observations, is used in this part, why not also in determining rainfall? Or ET? I think it makes the analyses stronger if the authors either totally rely on their own observations, or use all the available (satellite / re-analyses) data in all aspects of the water balance study.
Finally, I see that this is beyond the control of the authors, but it would, of course, be soo much more interesting if an actual HPE was recorded. If the campaign still continues and the authors do agree to split the manuscript, I would wait with publishing the water balance study untill an HPE has been recorded.
on the new gravimetry method
section 3.5 on the gravimetric sensor should report on the usabillity of this setup for hydrology in general. It is currently presented with the results, but mainly describes the sensor and setup, so should be in methods. I'm keen to see this device and what it can do!
concluding
I hope the authors find these suggestions helpfull in restructering the manuscript and would like to restate that the work done is very interesting in and of itself and with restructering of the paper (into seperate papers if possible) will be of great interest to the hydrological community.
Rolf Hut
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-131-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Wieser, 13 Jul 2022
The authors thank Dr. Rolf Hut for the valuable comments and his thoughtful review including recommendations to improve our manuscript. Based on his comments and the comments of reviewer 1, we are going to prepare a revised and shortened manuscript that (among other changes) we expect to be more focused on the main topics of the study.
Our detailed responses to the individual comments and suggestions are attached as pdf document.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-131', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2022
OVERVIEW
The study describes in details a new cross-disciplinary observation strategy for monitoring and understanding heavy precipitation events. The strategy has been applied in a small catchment in Germany during the summer of 2019.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The paper is well written and clear. The topic is relevant as we need detailed monitoring strategies to improve our monitoring and understanding of the formation of extreme events from their formation to flooding. The authors have made a tremendous effort for setting up a measurement strategy, with good and interesting results. The paper is easily readable and clear. I have listed here two minor comments that the authors might consider for improving the paper readability.
- The paper is too long for me. I believe the authors may consider the reduction of some parts, avoiding to go too much in details in the description of the technological aspects of the measurement apparatus. Likely these descriptions can be moved in the supplementary material.
- The HYDRATE project (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/37024), ended in 2010, has been specifically designed to monitor flash floods and hence with a purpose very close to that addressed by the authors in this study, and in the future monitoring campaigns. I would suggest to make a link to this project also to benefit from the experience gained.
RECOMMENDATION
On this basis, I found the topic of the paper relevant, and I suggest a minor revision before the paper can be published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-131-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Wieser, 13 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Review of hess-2022-131 by Rolf Hut', Rolf Hut, 10 Jun 2022
The authors present the results of an extensive field work campaign intended to capture data on heavy precipitation events (HPE). The document describes many aspects of this campaign and this is directly my top concern with the document: it lacks focus. I have identified three major topics in the manuscript which are all independently more than worhty enough of their own manuscript, but together create a manuscript where it is unclear for the readership what they can take away from reading it.
The three topics I have identified are (and let it be said that maybe the authors would have come to a different list)
- 'an elaborated event-triggered observation concept' (line 46)
- 'closing the catchment water balance at the HPE scale' (line 58)
- 'new measurement system based on terrestrial gravimetry' (line 106)
I would suggest to chose one of these topics and focus the paper on that and write two seperate (short) papers on the other two topics. This gives the readership a better choice in what to read (amids the never ending mountain of literature to read and keep up with). I fully understand this is not something the authors are happy to hear given the amount of work involved, but I trully believe it will lead to a better collection of papers. If the choice is made to stick with all of this information in one paper, I would strongly suggest to organize the paper along the lines of the three topics mentioned above. I will leave, as standard, the decision on how to proceed with the editor.
Regarding the three different subject I do have some comments that the authors might want to address when rewriting the paper.
on 'an elaborated event-triggered observation concept'
I really like the idea of the multi tier observations where based on forecasts the team switches to 'intensive monitoring'. It would really help the readership if the 'pre-defined environmenta; parameters' (line 144) used to make that decision was shared and even more: if the design process to come up with these parameters was shared for others to use in their own campaigns. I believe that this is a vital part of the innovation of this part of the manuscript and should be elaborated on. Related to this is that the colors in table 1 need explenation: when and how is the final decision for an IOP made based on the inputs?
The observation methods chosen cover a wide range of athmospheric and hydrologic interesting parameters that relate to HPE and the water balance in general. However, it is unclear what the selection of instruments is based on. Line 170 states that "To determine the water balance components according to Fig. 1 microwave radiometers, Doppler lidar and ardio soundings provide information on the state of the atmosphere as well as changes in water vapo distribution..." Fig. 1 contains many more processes, so the authors need to present a justification on how the instruments used in the campaign were chosen. And honestly: "we had these amazing things and wanted to use them" would be justification enough in my book, but that has to be acknowledged.
On 'closing the catchment water balance at the HPE scale'
I first and foremost want to stress that I 'm strongly against 'closing the water balance' as a goal in and of itself. Given the point based nature of most of our measurements, as well as the impossibility to measure a lot of the processes that transport water into and out of catchments, I don't see how we can ever 'close' the balance. However, as a thinking concept it can still serve its purpose. Having said that, I was surprised to see ERA5 used as part of the precipitable water calculation. If a re-analyses data source, based on both model and observations, is used in this part, why not also in determining rainfall? Or ET? I think it makes the analyses stronger if the authors either totally rely on their own observations, or use all the available (satellite / re-analyses) data in all aspects of the water balance study.
Finally, I see that this is beyond the control of the authors, but it would, of course, be soo much more interesting if an actual HPE was recorded. If the campaign still continues and the authors do agree to split the manuscript, I would wait with publishing the water balance study untill an HPE has been recorded.
on the new gravimetry method
section 3.5 on the gravimetric sensor should report on the usabillity of this setup for hydrology in general. It is currently presented with the results, but mainly describes the sensor and setup, so should be in methods. I'm keen to see this device and what it can do!
concluding
I hope the authors find these suggestions helpfull in restructering the manuscript and would like to restate that the work done is very interesting in and of itself and with restructering of the paper (into seperate papers if possible) will be of great interest to the hydrological community.
Rolf Hut
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-131-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Wieser, 13 Jul 2022
The authors thank Dr. Rolf Hut for the valuable comments and his thoughtful review including recommendations to improve our manuscript. Based on his comments and the comments of reviewer 1, we are going to prepare a revised and shortened manuscript that (among other changes) we expect to be more focused on the main topics of the study.
Our detailed responses to the individual comments and suggestions are attached as pdf document.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,006 | 298 | 42 | 1,346 | 42 | 36 |
- HTML: 1,006
- PDF: 298
- XML: 42
- Total: 1,346
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
