Evaluation and bias correction of probabilistic volcanic ash forecasts

Crawford, Alice; Chai, Tianfeng; Wang, Binyu; Ring, Allison; Stunder, Barbara; Loughner, Christopher P.; Pavolonis, Michael; Sieglaff, Justin

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13967-2022

Articles | Volume 22, issue 21

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13967-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13967-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 21

Research article

|

02 Nov 2022

Research article |

| 02 Nov 2022

Evaluation and bias correction of probabilistic volcanic ash forecasts

Alice Crawford, Tianfeng Chai, Binyu Wang, Allison Ring, Barbara Stunder, Christopher P. Loughner, Michael Pavolonis, and Justin Sieglaff

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Nov 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 May 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Arnau Folch, 26 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-290/egusphere-2022-290-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-290-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alice Crawford, 18 Jun 2022
  
  We thank Arnau Folch for the careful review and thoughtful comments which will improve the clarity of our manuscript. Some responses are posted in the attached supplement. Comments which are not addressed here will be addressed in the final review period
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-290-AC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jul 2022

Comments on “Evaluation and Bias Correction of Probabilistic Volcanic Ash Forecasts” by Crawford et al.

I think that the manuscript is an interesting contribution to the analysis and the interpretation of volcanic ash forecasts.

My main concern is that the large number of techniques/metrics presented leaves too little space to each of them for a proper and detailed presentation, and because of that the manuscript becomes hard to follow. A lot of times, the description of the methods are too vague and it is not easy to understand what is computed and how it is computed.

My strong suggestion is to expand the description of the methods with more details, and to put some intermediate figures with the steps in the appendix or in the supplementary materials.

You can find more detailed comments in the supplement (pdf).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-290-RC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Alice Crawford on behalf of the Authors (29 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 Sep 2022) by Stefano Galmarini

AR by Alice Crawford on behalf of the Authors (15 Sep 2022) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This study describes the development of a workflow which produces probabilistic and quantitative forecasts of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. The workflow includes methods of incorporating satellite observations of the ash cloud into a modeling framework as well as verification statistics that can be used to guide further model development and provide information for risk-based approaches to flight planning.