the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Oct 2021
Measurement Report: Strong Valley Wind Events during the International Collaborative Experiment – PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Project
Abstract. Strong gusty wind events were responsible for some of the poor performances of competitors and resulted in schedule changes during the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Three events at two venues were investigated to document and articulate the wind forecasting and nowcasting challenges. Upper air analysis showed that the Games were dominated by northwesterly synoptic flow. Froude and Reynolds number analyses indicated that vortex shedding or wake turbulence were the dominant mechanisms in the lee of the mountains where the free-style competitions were conducted. Three types of wind data (10 and 1 min averages plus 1 minute maximums) from automatic weather stations that were reported every minute were analyzed using advanced techniques (Hovmueller, wavelet and eigen analysis frequency estimation). For the two days of Event 1, the conditions were well mixed throughout the day and night. For the other events, diurnal variations were observed with a stable atmosphere at night, well mixed in the afternoon and with 2–4 hour transition periods in the morning and evenings. Turbulence was best portrayed using wavelet analysis and vortex shedding was best portrayed using the eigen analysis frequency estimation method. The latter revealed dominant frequencies, presumably associated with vortex shedding with periodicities of 20 to 90 minutes. Nowcast implications are discussed.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(25181 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2021
1/ General comments
The authors report results from different wind data analysis techniques applied to complex terrain (steep slope in a mountainous region) during and between Winter Olympic sports events. They intend to evaluate the rightfulness of decisions made regarding the cancellation and/or delay of said events. The title clearly reflects the article's content, which is relevant to the ACP publication. The strength of this article lies in the variety of approaches taken to study the wind at a high spatial and temporal resolution. Still, it contains many technical mistakes and could really use more proofreading.
A critical comment to address in priority is the complete lack of literature references in the Discussion, part 4. Moreover, the publication could really take advantage of putting forward the difference between the decisions taken against the data available at that time. It seems that this is an important objective for the paper, but it is only mentioned briefly in the last part.
Another important concern is the lack of details about how the fine-scale terrain structure (presence of features like a half-pipe, trees, etc.) is addressed. The authors recognize that this is an issue for the type of analysis they conduct, but it doesn't seem to be considered in their analysis.
2/ Specific comments
(l.125) I believe the paper would benefit from showing the temperature, pressure, and humidity values. Also, it matters to show the local or average slope angle and total change in terrain elevation when studying slope flows.
(l.141) Can you justify using the 700 mb winds in the present context?
(l. 142) It could be useful to state what length scale was used to define the Froude number here.
The whole part 3, Wind Analysis, does not read easily. It should be more concise and lacks references for using the methods presented in a similar context.
(l.230) missing a reference for MUSIC.
(l.324) Determining the initial value of p by a "trial and error exploration" sounds like a rather weak reasoning and prevents the generalization of this approach.
(l.358) Please elaborate on the following statement: "The winds were similar on both days", i.e., in which aspect were they similar?
(l.445) What does "well behaved" mean in the present context.
Overall, I feel that the hypothesis of a vortex shedding is only weakly substantiated, as it is hard to derive from just the Froude number and Reynolds number in such conditions.
3/ Technical comments
(l.1-12) Abstract: The part of the abstract where the work in the paper is described should be written in the present tense with the passive voice as opposed to using passive voice with the past tense. Using past tense for describing the work in the article may imply that new results emerged in the literature and the results presented here are no longer valid. I.e., instead of: "For the other events, diurnal variations were observed with a stable atmosphere at night, well mixed in the afternoon and with 2-4 hour transition periods in the morning and evenings.", the author should use: "For the other events, diurnal variations are observed with a stable atmosphere at night, well mixed in the afternoon and with 2-4 hour transition periods in the morning and evenings."
(l.14-15) Introduction: First Sentence can be rephrased so as not to be a repetition of the abstract.
(l.27-28) "It is noteworthy that the field of." —> "It is noteworthy to state that the field of"
(l.29-30) The author should use one format for presenting units throughout the paper. I.e., instead of "2 kilometers along the slope with less than 1km in vertical extent.", the following may be used: "2 km along the slope with less than 1 km in vertical extent.". There should be a space with the magnitude (the numbers) and the units. A similar issue emerges at (l.85-86: 'meters' or 'm'. And in many instances, such as in l.183-184, l.6: "10 and 1 min averages plus 1-minute maximums".
(l.79-81) The organization description should indicate in which sections the written procedure are handled. I.e., In section 2, the venues and fields of play, the selected events, and available observations are briefly described; in section 3, the results from various advanced analyses are presented, etc. The numerals used within parentheses do not correspond with section numbers, and each item should include a verb or should be formed in a way that none of the items have verbs.
(l.83-84) The author should either use "100 km x 100 km" or "100 km square".
(l.87) Table 1 and Table 2 are not introduced in the text. The first table the author mentions is Table 3. Before presenting the tables, the introduction to those tables should be given.
(l.105) What does "(see below)" indicate? A section, a table? It should be clearly marked.
(l.114) "are described elsewhere (Lee et al., 2021)" —> "are described by Lee et al.(2021)".
(l.127) The correct suffix for singular nouns should be used, i.e., "Figure 3 show" —> "Figure 3 shows". Such mistakes occur throughout the manuscript and should be proofread for similar errors. Similar to "Details of the following analysis is described in the Appendix." in (l.234 and "The BOKX and BOKSS transects was located" in l.291.
(l.212-213) The following sentence should be made clear: "Many of the same features from the Hovmueller analysis are observed here with a different perspective and include:"
(l.216-217) Please provide a reference for this statement.
(l.219-220) "BOKSS (compare b and d)" and then "BOKX (compare a and c)": please indicate the figure label, i.e., "compare Fig. 6 panel b and panel d).
(l.282) Does "(4)" refer to "Fig.4"?
(l.440) missing the word "as" after "problematic".
(l.449) missing the reference for the "Fig??".
(l.454) "main text has further results" is too general. It may be worth highlighting those results again in 1-2 sentences.
Overall, many figures are too small or contain too much information for comfort (e.g., fig. 2, fig. 6, fig.9).
When they contain several graphs, it could be helpful to label each graph individually (a), b), c), etc.). Most pictures also lack a label for the color bar used (units, variables name?)
Fig. 1 should show regions from the large to the small scale. Also, BOKX and BOKSS are missing from it.
Some acronyms are defined after being used (e.g., AWS at l.117).
Some words put in quotes, whereas a few more words could be used to define them more properly (e.g., "open" l.119)
There are many instances of missing parenthesis (e.g., l.75, l.95, l.263, l.324, etc.)
What are "co-slopes" (e.g., l.158)? Do you mean along slopes?
Some orthographic mistakes could be avoided with more in-depth proofreading. “Slope style” is written “slopestyle”, (l.239) "eigen value” is "eigenvalue”. I think “Hovmueller” is written “Hövmoller”.
In Table 2, "For comparison" is a bit abstract. I would prefer "for reference".
What is the red line in Fig. 4 standing for?
Table 3 is introduced on l.88, but it only showed eight pages later.
In Fig.5, the variable THETA, most likely the potential temperature, should be precisely defined.
In Fig.7, the horizontal axis is inconsistent between the top and bottom figures.
It is hard to distinguish each curve in Fig 14, plus the title overlaps the figure.
There is no description of Fig. 9e in the caption.
The titles fig_009a or b in Fig.10 and Fig.11 should not be left there.
Figure 1 Caption: 100km x 100km —> 100 km x 100 km
Table 1 and Table 3: Units for the Latitude and Longitude unit (degrees) should be given even if common knowledge.
Table 1: Year information for rows 1, 2, and 3 should be given.
Table 2: Full stops (punctuation mark) should be avoided unless in a complete sentence.
The format in references is inconsistent (e.g., l.509, space between initials needed).
Throughout the manuscript: Table captions are not descriptive. They should be as descriptive as the figure captions in the manuscript.
Throughout the manuscript: 'Figure' should be abbreviated x —> Fig. x instead of tables.
Throughout the manuscript: The months should not be abbreviated. Feb —> February.
Throughout the manuscript: Parentheses with long descriptions should be avoided within the text for clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-620-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Paul I. Joe, 16 Feb 2022
The comments by reviewers were substantial and I respond by providing a pdf file. The response is composed of general comments and point by point comments. I duplicate the general comments here.
General Response
Given the comments and the classification as a measurement report, I have decided to significantly reduce the scope of the objectives and the contents of the paper. I will focus on the nowcasting and process aspects.
As Reviewer 1 suggested, a new title to help focus the paper. I will focus on the Nowcasting Challenge of the Women’s Slope Style Event (not final title), new analysis tools/forecast techniques and their limitations. I will not focus on reference examples (null or thermal case or with constricted terrain).
The most important points can be done by focusing on one event (Event 1) and one venue (BOKSS) and not three events and three venues. Then I can spend more space to provide more context/explanation. This will eliminate the figures with too many sub-plots. The number of figures may not change.
I will also drop the eigenanalysis. I may have not articulated my problems with the limited resolving capability of wavelet analysis clearly enough (i.e. poor resolving capability) but the eigenanalysis indicated that there were no closely spaced peaks and my concern was unfounded. While I felt that this was significant and answers a nagging question for me, it seems not important to the reviewers and so I will drop it as it is not needed to “tell the story”. Publishing elsewhere will give the innovation that I found proper attention.
With the descoping, I will be able to focus on providing much more context which is the major message that I am receiving from the reviews. This will also limit the conclusions but also keep them simple and therefore understood easier.
Therefore, the suggestion by RC1 to change the title and the scope of the paper is accepted.
I actually do not see many disagreements but the comments help focus where I need to improve the manuscript.
-
AC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Paul I. Joe, 18 Feb 2022
I need to clarify and summarize the discussion of the 2D/3D nature of the wind data, the computation and terminology of co and cross winds.
1. The winds (speed and direction) are made horizontally. There is no vertical wind measurement. This is a deficiency but this is what the forecasters and researchers had to work with. Nontheless, part of the objectives of the paper was to investigate the usefulness of this for forecasting and nowcasting.
2. The slope of the terrain was the average slope in 3D using the weather station locations. However, since there is no vertical wind component, the direction of the slope was used to derived the wind components in the direction of the slope and across the slope.
3. The computation is done by dot (sometimes called the co-linear product) and cross products of the horizontal wind at each station and the unit vector of the slope direction.
4. This is termed "co" and "cross" slope winds instead of along and cross slope. This is purposely done to distinguish this from a wind that includes the vertical component and is truly along the slope.
This was clear in the original manuscript or in my previous response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-620-AC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2021
1/ General comments
The authors report results from different wind data analysis techniques applied to complex terrain (steep slope in a mountainous region) during and between Winter Olympic sports events. They intend to evaluate the rightfulness of decisions made regarding the cancellation and/or delay of said events. The title clearly reflects the article's content, which is relevant to the ACP publication. The strength of this article lies in the variety of approaches taken to study the wind at a high spatial and temporal resolution. Still, it contains many technical mistakes and could really use more proofreading.
A critical comment to address in priority is the complete lack of literature references in the Discussion, part 4. Moreover, the publication could really take advantage of putting forward the difference between the decisions taken against the data available at that time. It seems that this is an important objective for the paper, but it is only mentioned briefly in the last part.
Another important concern is the lack of details about how the fine-scale terrain structure (presence of features like a half-pipe, trees, etc.) is addressed. The authors recognize that this is an issue for the type of analysis they conduct, but it doesn't seem to be considered in their analysis.
2/ Specific comments
(l.125) I believe the paper would benefit from showing the temperature, pressure, and humidity values. Also, it matters to show the local or average slope angle and total change in terrain elevation when studying slope flows.
(l.141) Can you justify using the 700 mb winds in the present context?
(l. 142) It could be useful to state what length scale was used to define the Froude number here.
The whole part 3, Wind Analysis, does not read easily. It should be more concise and lacks references for using the methods presented in a similar context.
(l.230) missing a reference for MUSIC.
(l.324) Determining the initial value of p by a "trial and error exploration" sounds like a rather weak reasoning and prevents the generalization of this approach.
(l.358) Please elaborate on the following statement: "The winds were similar on both days", i.e., in which aspect were they similar?
(l.445) What does "well behaved" mean in the present context.
Overall, I feel that the hypothesis of a vortex shedding is only weakly substantiated, as it is hard to derive from just the Froude number and Reynolds number in such conditions.
3/ Technical comments
(l.1-12) Abstract: The part of the abstract where the work in the paper is described should be written in the present tense with the passive voice as opposed to using passive voice with the past tense. Using past tense for describing the work in the article may imply that new results emerged in the literature and the results presented here are no longer valid. I.e., instead of: "For the other events, diurnal variations were observed with a stable atmosphere at night, well mixed in the afternoon and with 2-4 hour transition periods in the morning and evenings.", the author should use: "For the other events, diurnal variations are observed with a stable atmosphere at night, well mixed in the afternoon and with 2-4 hour transition periods in the morning and evenings."
(l.14-15) Introduction: First Sentence can be rephrased so as not to be a repetition of the abstract.
(l.27-28) "It is noteworthy that the field of." —> "It is noteworthy to state that the field of"
(l.29-30) The author should use one format for presenting units throughout the paper. I.e., instead of "2 kilometers along the slope with less than 1km in vertical extent.", the following may be used: "2 km along the slope with less than 1 km in vertical extent.". There should be a space with the magnitude (the numbers) and the units. A similar issue emerges at (l.85-86: 'meters' or 'm'. And in many instances, such as in l.183-184, l.6: "10 and 1 min averages plus 1-minute maximums".
(l.79-81) The organization description should indicate in which sections the written procedure are handled. I.e., In section 2, the venues and fields of play, the selected events, and available observations are briefly described; in section 3, the results from various advanced analyses are presented, etc. The numerals used within parentheses do not correspond with section numbers, and each item should include a verb or should be formed in a way that none of the items have verbs.
(l.83-84) The author should either use "100 km x 100 km" or "100 km square".
(l.87) Table 1 and Table 2 are not introduced in the text. The first table the author mentions is Table 3. Before presenting the tables, the introduction to those tables should be given.
(l.105) What does "(see below)" indicate? A section, a table? It should be clearly marked.
(l.114) "are described elsewhere (Lee et al., 2021)" —> "are described by Lee et al.(2021)".
(l.127) The correct suffix for singular nouns should be used, i.e., "Figure 3 show" —> "Figure 3 shows". Such mistakes occur throughout the manuscript and should be proofread for similar errors. Similar to "Details of the following analysis is described in the Appendix." in (l.234 and "The BOKX and BOKSS transects was located" in l.291.
(l.212-213) The following sentence should be made clear: "Many of the same features from the Hovmueller analysis are observed here with a different perspective and include:"
(l.216-217) Please provide a reference for this statement.
(l.219-220) "BOKSS (compare b and d)" and then "BOKX (compare a and c)": please indicate the figure label, i.e., "compare Fig. 6 panel b and panel d).
(l.282) Does "(4)" refer to "Fig.4"?
(l.440) missing the word "as" after "problematic".
(l.449) missing the reference for the "Fig??".
(l.454) "main text has further results" is too general. It may be worth highlighting those results again in 1-2 sentences.
Overall, many figures are too small or contain too much information for comfort (e.g., fig. 2, fig. 6, fig.9).
When they contain several graphs, it could be helpful to label each graph individually (a), b), c), etc.). Most pictures also lack a label for the color bar used (units, variables name?)
Fig. 1 should show regions from the large to the small scale. Also, BOKX and BOKSS are missing from it.
Some acronyms are defined after being used (e.g., AWS at l.117).
Some words put in quotes, whereas a few more words could be used to define them more properly (e.g., "open" l.119)
There are many instances of missing parenthesis (e.g., l.75, l.95, l.263, l.324, etc.)
What are "co-slopes" (e.g., l.158)? Do you mean along slopes?
Some orthographic mistakes could be avoided with more in-depth proofreading. “Slope style” is written “slopestyle”, (l.239) "eigen value” is "eigenvalue”. I think “Hovmueller” is written “Hövmoller”.
In Table 2, "For comparison" is a bit abstract. I would prefer "for reference".
What is the red line in Fig. 4 standing for?
Table 3 is introduced on l.88, but it only showed eight pages later.
In Fig.5, the variable THETA, most likely the potential temperature, should be precisely defined.
In Fig.7, the horizontal axis is inconsistent between the top and bottom figures.
It is hard to distinguish each curve in Fig 14, plus the title overlaps the figure.
There is no description of Fig. 9e in the caption.
The titles fig_009a or b in Fig.10 and Fig.11 should not be left there.
Figure 1 Caption: 100km x 100km —> 100 km x 100 km
Table 1 and Table 3: Units for the Latitude and Longitude unit (degrees) should be given even if common knowledge.
Table 1: Year information for rows 1, 2, and 3 should be given.
Table 2: Full stops (punctuation mark) should be avoided unless in a complete sentence.
The format in references is inconsistent (e.g., l.509, space between initials needed).
Throughout the manuscript: Table captions are not descriptive. They should be as descriptive as the figure captions in the manuscript.
Throughout the manuscript: 'Figure' should be abbreviated x —> Fig. x instead of tables.
Throughout the manuscript: The months should not be abbreviated. Feb —> February.
Throughout the manuscript: Parentheses with long descriptions should be avoided within the text for clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-620-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Paul I. Joe, 16 Feb 2022
The comments by reviewers were substantial and I respond by providing a pdf file. The response is composed of general comments and point by point comments. I duplicate the general comments here.
General Response
Given the comments and the classification as a measurement report, I have decided to significantly reduce the scope of the objectives and the contents of the paper. I will focus on the nowcasting and process aspects.
As Reviewer 1 suggested, a new title to help focus the paper. I will focus on the Nowcasting Challenge of the Women’s Slope Style Event (not final title), new analysis tools/forecast techniques and their limitations. I will not focus on reference examples (null or thermal case or with constricted terrain).
The most important points can be done by focusing on one event (Event 1) and one venue (BOKSS) and not three events and three venues. Then I can spend more space to provide more context/explanation. This will eliminate the figures with too many sub-plots. The number of figures may not change.
I will also drop the eigenanalysis. I may have not articulated my problems with the limited resolving capability of wavelet analysis clearly enough (i.e. poor resolving capability) but the eigenanalysis indicated that there were no closely spaced peaks and my concern was unfounded. While I felt that this was significant and answers a nagging question for me, it seems not important to the reviewers and so I will drop it as it is not needed to “tell the story”. Publishing elsewhere will give the innovation that I found proper attention.
With the descoping, I will be able to focus on providing much more context which is the major message that I am receiving from the reviews. This will also limit the conclusions but also keep them simple and therefore understood easier.
Therefore, the suggestion by RC1 to change the title and the scope of the paper is accepted.
I actually do not see many disagreements but the comments help focus where I need to improve the manuscript.
-
AC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-620', Paul I. Joe, 18 Feb 2022
I need to clarify and summarize the discussion of the 2D/3D nature of the wind data, the computation and terminology of co and cross winds.
1. The winds (speed and direction) are made horizontally. There is no vertical wind measurement. This is a deficiency but this is what the forecasters and researchers had to work with. Nontheless, part of the objectives of the paper was to investigate the usefulness of this for forecasting and nowcasting.
2. The slope of the terrain was the average slope in 3D using the weather station locations. However, since there is no vertical wind component, the direction of the slope was used to derived the wind components in the direction of the slope and across the slope.
3. The computation is done by dot (sometimes called the co-linear product) and cross products of the horizontal wind at each station and the unit vector of the slope direction.
4. This is termed "co" and "cross" slope winds instead of along and cross slope. This is purposely done to distinguish this from a wind that includes the vertical component and is truly along the slope.
This was clear in the original manuscript or in my previous response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-620-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 990 | 217 | 53 | 1,260 | 28 | 28 |
- HTML: 990
- PDF: 217
- XML: 53
- Total: 1,260
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1