This corrigendum is to report a known error in Wang et al. (2022) entitled “Tropical Cyclone Potential Size” (TC PS). The error is that the reported wcool diagnosed from CM1 simulations (section 3) is about half of the true value, as a result of a mistake in the code of its calculation. Thus, the first sentence on p. 3018 should be corrected as “The value of wcool is approximately 0.0027 m s−1 when SST = 300 K; it increases to ∼0.006 m s−1 when SST = 280 K.”
The incorrect value of wcool was put into the TC PS model to compare with CM1 results (Figs. 10 and 11 of Wang et al. 2022). Thus, we need to evaluate the error induced in Figs. 10 and 11. The overall nice match of both ra (outer radius of vanishing winds) and pm (near surface pressure at radius of maximum wind rm) in Figs. 10 and 11 suggests that the TC PS model is not strongly sensitive to wcool; thus, the error is estimated to be small and does not affect the conclusion(s) drawn from Figs. 10 and 11. Because the first author is not able to access the original model output, we do not provide direct updates of Figs. 10 and 11 here. Instead, we demonstrate below the general weak sensitivity of the TC PS model to wcool by a sensitivity test in which the range of wcool tested is wider than the error itself.
In the TC PS model, wcool is put into Chavas et al. (2015, hereafter C15) wind model for the pm and rm (for calculation of Mm, the absolute angular momentum at rm) predicted by C15 model. First, we show C15 model predicted pm is not very sensitive to wcool (Fig. 1). The pm only changes by ∼5 hPa with a 6-times difference of wcool (0.001 35 to 0.0081 m s−1). Indeed, TC PS predictions are weakly sensitive to wcool, as shown by Figs. 2 and 3. The effect of wcool in affecting TC PS prediction by modulating Mm is small as Mm is by itself only a small portion (∼10%) of Ma (absolute angular momentum at ra), which is responsible for the “outflow work” in TC PS model.
This figure helps explain why quantitatively small changes of Figs. 10 and 11 in Wang et al. (2022) are expected if correct wcool were used. (a) C15 model predicted wind profile (m s−1) with different wcool (m s−1; see legends); (b) the corresponding surface pressure profile following gradient wind balance. The dots mark rm and the corresponding tangential velocity in (a) and pm in (b). Environment settings other than wcool are the same as Fig. 4 of Wang et al. (2022). In the calculation of surface pressure by gradient wind balance, air density is simply approximated by ideal gas law ignoring water vapor.
Citation: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 80, 6; 10.1175/JAS-D-23-0042.1
This figure demonstrates why quantitatively small changes of Fig. 10 in Wang et al. (2022) are expected if correct wcool were used. TC PS model prediction of (a),(c),(e) ra (km) and (b),(d),(f) pm (hPa) for a range of values of wcool (m s−1; see legends) and with variable (top) Coriolis parameter f, (middle) tropopause (outflow) temperature, and (bottom) sea surface temperature. Environment settings other than wcool are the same as Fig. 5 of Wang et al. (2022), with the exception that η = 0.4, ro = 1.25ra is used following section 3 of Wang et al. (2022), and outflow temperature spans from 160 to 240 K in (c) and (d). This figure follows Fig. 5 of Wang et al. (2022).
Citation: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 80, 6; 10.1175/JAS-D-23-0042.1
This figure demonstrates why quantitatively small changes of Fig. 11 in Wang et al. (2022) are expected if correct wcool were used. As in Fig. 2, but with variable (top) surface exchange coefficient for momentum Cd and (bottom) maximum gradient wind Vgm. Environment settings other than wcool are the same as Fig. 6 of Wang et al. (2022), with the exception of η = 0.4, ro = 1.25ra. This figure follows Fig. 6 of Wang et al. (2022). The test with a varied exchange coefficient for enthalpy Ck is not included because it does not modulate Vp in our simulation setup and it is not varied in Figs. 11c and 11d of Wang et al. (2022).
Citation: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 80, 6; 10.1175/JAS-D-23-0042.1
Given that the TC PS model is only weakly sensitive to wcool, the nice match of the TC PS prediction and CM1 results in Figs. 10 and 11 of Wang et al. (2022) should still hold with correct wcool.
Another relevant calculation is the corresponding ra (section 3) estimated from Emanuel (2004, hereafter E04) model by fitting to simulated r4. The incorrect (too small) wcool would increase ra by doubling the
REFERENCES
Chavas, D. R., N. Lin, and K. A. Emanuel, 2015: A model for the complete radial structure of the tropical cyclone wind field. Part I: Comparison with observed structure. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 3647–3662, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0014.1.
Emanuel, K. A., 2004: Tropical cyclone energetics and structure. Atmospheric Turbulence and Mesoscale Meteorology, E. Fedorovich, R. Rotunno, and B. Stevens, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 165–192.
Wang, D., Y. Lin, and D. Chavas, 2022: Tropical cyclone potential size. J. Atmos. Sci., 79, 3001–3025, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0325.1.
