HOAPS and ERA-Interim precipitation over sea: Validation against shipboard in-situ measurements

The satellite-derived HOAPS (Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite Data) and ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) ERA-Interim reanalysis data sets have been validated against in situ precipitation measurements from ship rain gauges and optical disdrometers over the open ocean by applying a statistical analysis for binary estimates. For this purpose collocated pairs of data were merged within a certain temporal and spatial threshold into single events, according to the satellites' overpass, the observation and the ERA-Interim times. HOAPS detects the frequency of precipitation well, while ERA-Interim strongly overestimates it, especially in the tropics and subtropics. Although precipitation rates are difficult to compare because along-track point measurements are collocated with areal estimates and the number of available data are limited, we find that HOAPS underestimates precipitation rates, while ERA-Interim's Atlantic-wide average precipitation rate is close to measurements. However, when regionally averaged over latitudinal belts, deviations between the observed mean precipitation rates and ERA-Interim exist. The most obvious ERA-Interim feature is an overestimation of precipitation in the area of the intertropical convergence zone and the southern subtropics over the Atlantic Ocean. For a limited number of snow measurements by optical disdrometers, it can be concluded that both HOAPS and ERA-Interim are suitable for detecting the occurrence of solid precipitation

Decomposition of Random Errors Inherent to HOAPS-3.2 Near-Surface Humidity Estimates Using Multiple Triple Collocation Analysis

Latent heat fluxes (LHF) play an essential role in the global energy budget and are thus important for understanding the climate system. Satellite-based remote sensing permits a large-scale determination of LHF, which, amongst others, are based on near-surface specific humidity qa. However, the qa random retrieval error (Etot) remains unknown. Here, a novel approach is presented to quantify the error contributions to pixel-level qa of the Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite (HOAPS, version 3.2) dataset. The methodology makes use of multiple triple collocation (MTC) analysis between 1995-2008 over the global ice-free oceans. Apart from satellite records, these datasets include selected ship records extracted from the Seewetteramt Hamburg (SWA) archive and the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), serving as the in-situ ground reference. The MTC approach permits the derivation of Etot as the sum of model uncertainty EM and sensor noise EN, while random uncertainties due to in-situ measurement errors (Eins) and collocation (EC) are isolated concurrently. Results show an Etot average of 1.1 ± 0.3 g kg-1, whereas the mean EC (Eins) is in the order of 0.5 ± 0.1 g kg-1 (0.5 ± 0.3 g kg-1). Regional analyses indicate a maximum of Etot exceeding 1.5 g kg-1 within humidity regimes of 12-17 g kg-1, associated with the single-parameter, multilinear qa retrieval applied in HOAPS. Multi-dimensional bias analysis reveals that global maxima are located off the Arabian Peninsula

Validation practices for satellite based earth observation data across communities

Assessing the inherent uncertainties in satellite data products is a challenging task. Different technical approaches have been developed in the Earth Observation (EO) communities to address the validation problem which results in a large variety of methods as well as terminology. This paper reviews state-of-the-art methods of satellite validation and documents their similarities and differences. First the overall validation objectives and terminologies are specified, followed by a generic mathematical formulation of the validation problem. Metrics currently used as well as more advanced EO validation approaches are introduced thereafter. An outlook on the applicability and requirements of current EO validation approaches and targets is given

Die Bedeutung der Ozean-Atmosphäre-Wechselwirkung für die natürliche Klimavariabilität in der Arktis

The present increase in average Arctic (60°-90°N) surface temperature is almost three times as high as the corresponding global average increase. An accelerated temperature rise was also observed at the beginning of the 20th century (1910-1940, ECW) and is referred to as "Arctic Amplication". It was followed by a sharp temperature decrease (1940-1970) with following warming. Its trend has only recently been exceeded by the current Arctic warming. The underlying mechanisms which produce such multidecadal climate variability are presently under debate. It is suggested that the ECW was driven by natural coupling mechanisms within the climate system. In this context it might have be linked to changing westerlies in the North Atlantic, anomalies of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation as well as changes in sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacic (NAO, MOC and NINO3, respectively). Since the Arctic climate system seems to play a crucial role with respect to global warming, further analysis is required in order to understand its origin. For the purposes of this study, three control simulations (1500 yrs. of integrations each) were analysed which dffer in complexity in sense of coupling between atmosphere and ocean components. These are a fully coupled atmospheric-seaice-ocean GCM (ECHAM5/MPI-OM), an atmospheric GCM coupled with a thermodynamical mixed-layer ocean model including a thermodynamical seaice model (ECHAM5/MLO) and an atmospheric GCM forced by prescribed lower boundary conditions (ECHAM5/xed-SST). The annual means of anomalies of Arctic surface temperature (SAT) and sea ice extent (ICE) were analysized with respect to the different runs and their links to the major possible climate variability drives such as NAO-, MOC- and NINO3-variability. The objective was to assess the impact of coupling between ocean and atmosphere concerning driving mechanisms of (multi-) decadal variability, using statistical tools like correlation, coherence and wavelet-analysis. The results show that the coupled model produces several multidecadal variabilities which might be particularly concentrated in the Barents Sea region. In this context, a low-frequency oscillation of SAT- and ICE-anomalies might represent an eigenmode of variability in the Arctic climate system. Arctic climate variability is further driven by MOC-uctuations which leads Arctic SAT-changes by four years. Furthermore, NINO3- and SAT-anomalies seem to be linked via atmospheric teleconnections with a time lag of several months. Additionally, SAT- and NAO-changes are suggested to be linked on decadal variability scale. Multidecadal Oscillations can hardly be resolved when excluding large-scale ocean dynamics, corresponding to the ECHAM5/MLO - controll run. Nevertheless, Arctic SAT- and NINO3-uctuations cohere signicantly, possibly producing hyper-modes which inuence the Arctic climate via teleconnections. Additionally, NAO- and SAT-changes seem to be related with a time lag of a few months, whereas NAO-anomalies impact Arctic SAT-changes on an intraseasonal timescale. An entire exclusion of interaction between ocean and atmosphere (ECHAM5/xed-SST, respectively) prohibits any kind of (multi-) decadal variability which emphasizes the significance of coupling. This can also be seen in the simulation results of the landmass regions. Corresponding variabilities remain low and do not depend on the model run's complexity

Precipitation over sea: Validation against shipboard in-situ measurements

The satellite derived HOAPS (Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite data) and ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) ERA-Interim reanalysis data sets have been validated against in-situ precipitation measurements from ship rain gauges and optical disdrometers over the open-ocean by applying a statistical analysis for binary forecasts. For this purpose collocated pairs of data were merged within a certain temporal and spatial threshold into single events, according to the satellites' overpass, the observation and the forecast times. HOAPS detects the frequency of precipitation well, while ERA-Interim strongly overestimates it, especially in the tropics and subtropics. Although precipitation rates are difficult to compare because along-track point measurements are collocated with areal estimates and the numbers of available data are limited, we find that HOAPS underestimates precipitation rates, while ERA-Interim's Atlantic-wide average precipitation rate is close to measurements. However, regionally averaged over latitudinal belts, there are deviations between the observed mean precipitation rates and ERA-Interim. The most obvious ERA-Interim feature is an overestimation of precipitation in the area of the intertropical convergence zone and the southern sub-tropics over the Atlantic Ocean. For a limited number of snow measurements by optical disdrometers it can be concluded that both HOAPS and ERA-Interim are suitable to detect the occurrence of solid precipitation

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee