Influence of solar variability on the occurrence of central European weather types from 1763 to 2009

Schwander, Mikhaël; Rohrer, Marco; Brönnimann, Stefan; Malik, Abdul

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1199-2017

Articles | Volume 13, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1199-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1199-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 9

Research article

|

21 Sep 2017

Research article |

| 21 Sep 2017

Influence of solar variability on the occurrence of central European weather types from 1763 to 2009

Mikhaël Schwander, Marco Rohrer, Stefan Brönnimann, and Abdul Malik

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Sep 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Schwander et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Feb 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #1', Mikhaël Schwander, 19 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Referee comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Mar 2017
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #2', Mikhaël Schwander, 19 Apr 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Apr 2017) by Jürg Luterbacher

AR by Mikhaël Schwander on behalf of the Authors (03 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Jun 2017) by Jürg Luterbacher

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Jul 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (08 Jul 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I appreciate the effort taken by the authors to revise the manuscript, which reads much better now. Yet, there are some points that need further improvement to make manuscript more concise and deliver a clearer message. My recomendation for major revision is mostly related to the part of model results.

Merit of simulations.
Reading the manuscript in the present form, I would suggest to take out the part of model simulations. Section 3.4 where some model results are described is very short (I count 7 lines!) and do not corroborate the observed evidence. I would partly agree/disagree on the conclusion that model resolution is too coarse to simulate large scale changes associated with the NAO, but even if it is the case, what is the point of using such a model?

Presentation of solar signals
In some parts, you note that MAX-MIN are subtracted but in other you present MIN-MAX. Please make it consistent throughout the text.

Positive or Negative NAO?
In the discussion, you note that results resemble a negative NAO in solar MIN, but immediately after you mention that NAO get positive. I wouldn’t say from SLP anomalies (figure 4.a) that signal matches any phase of NAO.

Relation between figure 5 and figure 4
In p24 l. 9 you attribute signals in Figure 4 to changes in figure 5. Figure 4 refers however to the 1958-2009 period during which there is no significant change in W type (figure 5c). There is a drop in WSW but not significant. Likewise, a stronger increase in E type (still insignificant) is seen for the moderate compared to low years over 1958-2009. I don’t think that your argument here is backed by results.

Other (counting is based on the version of the manuscript with highlighted changes stitched with the responses to reviewers.)
p11 (first page), l.25: … atmospheric circulation over Europe?
p12 , l.2 : please add reference list in chorological order
p12, l. 5: is Sitnov relevant? Soukharev and Hood, 2006 is relevant for the solar cycle signals in ozone.
P12, l.25: please rewrite. Enhanced references to the strength not the phase.
P12. L26: … influence projects …
P12. Second paragraph: too many “found”. Please rewrite
P12 l.31: Why NAO effects could be visible only on short time scales?
P13 l. 1: I think the results of Sirocko et al., have been questioned on statistical grounds
P13 l. 14: define CMIP5
P13 l. 15: My impression is that Mitchell et al., DID NOT demonstrate any significant lagged NAO changes. Misios et al. has nothing to do with the polar night jet.
Section 2.1 : too much information
P15 l. 10: … used as a reference …
P15 l. 11: not well discriminated types: what do you mean?
P15 l. 13: 7 -> seven
P16 l. 22-24: it should go to Data and Methods
P17 l 5: Earlier you mention 1x1 grid size. Here you interpolate only ERA-40? What about ERA-int?
P17 l. 28: The SOCOL -> SOCOL (see also my comment about taking out the model simulations)
P19 l. 17: For the last 50 years (Figure 5c)….
P21 l.1: … analysis is complemented? ….
P24 l. 1: and is visible -> and it still persists?
P24 l. 17: are similar at zero lag
P26 l. 15: Following these….-> Based on this observational evidence,

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (08 Jul 2017) by Jürg Luterbacher

AR by Mikhaël Schwander on behalf of the Authors (04 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by Editor) (07 Aug 2017) by Jürg Luterbacher

AR by Mikhaël Schwander on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Aug 2017) by Jürg Luterbacher

Short summary

We used a new classification of daily weather patterns to analyse the influence of solar variability (11-year cycle) on European climate from 1763 to 2009. The analysis of the weather patterns occurrences shows a reduction in the number of days with a westerly flow over Europe under low solar activity during late winter. In parallel, the number of days with an easterly flow increases. Based on these results we expect colder winter over Europe under low solar activity.