Observation impact on mesoscale model forecast accuracy over southwest asia
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 23

Observation Impact on Mesoscale Model Forecast Accuracy over Southwest Asia PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Observation Impact on Mesoscale Model Forecast Accuracy over Southwest Asia. Dr. Michael D. McAtee Environmental Satellite Systems Division (ESSD) User Applications and Integration (UA&I). ESSD/UA&I February 2014. Approved for Public Release – Distribution Unlimited . Overview.

Download Presentation

Observation Impact on Mesoscale Model Forecast Accuracy over Southwest Asia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Observation impact on mesoscale model forecast accuracy over southwest asia

Observation Impact on Mesoscale Model Forecast Accuracy over Southwest Asia

Dr. Michael D. McAteeEnvironmental Satellite Systems Division (ESSD)

User Applications and Integration (UA&I)

ESSD/UA&I

February 2014

Approved for Public Release – Distribution Unlimited


Overview

Overview

  • Observation Impact Assessment Tool History and Description

  • System Configuration for Southwest Asia

  • Impact Results

    • Select day

    • Period Averages

  • Summary and Future Work


Impact tool history and description

Impact Tool History and Description

Forecast Sensitivity to Observations

  • Based on results presented in a JCSDA newsletter, AFWA16th WS personnel were encouraged to pursue the development of an observation impact assessment tool based on techniques developed at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

  • AFWA tasked the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) with developing such a tool that could be used with its operational forecast model and data assimilation system (WRF and WRF DA) leveraging previous work that had been done to develop 4DVAR

  • Aerospace working with NCAR, AFWA and its contractors installed the system in AFWA’s development environment


Impact tool history and description1

Impact Tool History and Description

Forecast Sensitivity to Observations

  • The tool, which is called Forecast Sensitivity to Observations (FSO),has the ability, using adjoint techniques, to quantitatively estimate the impact that assimilating observations has on short-range WRF model forecast accuracy

  • The FSO system used in this study consists of WRF DA, WRF, the adjoint to WRF, and the adjoint to WRF DA

  • An FSO capability has been developed to work with the Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) system


The case for fso

The Case for FSO?

Forecast Sensitivity to Observations

  • Meets a need to know not only the impact of observations but also their relative value

  • A single run of FSO can provide the relative value of all observations assimilated without the need for multiple and computationally expensive with- and without- model runs

  • FSO can provide the critical information needed to intelligently select which channels from space based remote sensors will be assimilated

  • FSO can be used to monitor the health of an NWP center’s data assimilation system as well as the health of the observations it uses

  • FSO can determine which individual observations improved or degraded the forecast


So how does fso work

So How Does FSO Work?

Forecast Sensitivity to Observations

  • Non-Linear (NL) forecast models can be linearized (with simplifications)

  • The resulting Tangent-Linear (TL) model represents the linear evolution of small perturbations

  • The mathematical transpose of the TL code is called the Adjoint (ADJ) and it transports sensitivities back in time

  • The ADJ of the data assimilation system is needed to compute the sensitivity to observations. It can be computed with various methods but the one used in FSO is the Lanczos minimization (Fisher 1997, Tremolet 2008)


Implementation in wrf

Implementation in WRF

Analysis

(xa)

Forecast

(xf)

Observation

(y)

WRF-VAR

Data Assimilation

WRF-ARW

Forecast

Model

Define

Forecast

Accuracy

Background

(xb)

Forecast

Accuracy

(F)

Observation Impact

<y-H(xb)> (F/ y)

Sensitivity

at the Initial

Time

(F/ x0)

Gradient

of F

(F/ xf)

Observation

Sensitivity

(F/ y)

Adjoint of WRF-ARW Forecast

TL Model

(WRF+)

Adjoint of

WRF-VAR

Data

Assimilation

Derive

Forecast

Accuracy

Background

Sensitivity

(F/ xb)

Figure from NCAR which was adapted from Liang Xu at NRL

Obs Error

Sensitivity

(F/ eob)

Bias Correction

Sensitivity

(F/ k)


Fso configuration

Forecast Error Sensitivity

wrt

Potential Temperature

FSO Configuration

  • AFWA SW Asia Domain (T4)

  • WRF, WRF DA Ver 3.2.1

    • 45 km grid spacing

    • 57 levels, model top 10 mb

    • Limited data assimilation (DA) cycle

    • DA Cycle times: 00,06,12,18 UTC

  • 24 hour forecast length

  • Dry energy forecast error metric

  • Impact computed for sub region

  • Study period 1-29 January 2012 for 00 and 12 UTC cycles

(oK)

F=


Fso configuration1

AIREPS

Sound

FSO Configuration

  • Observations Assimilated

  • Aircraft Reports(AIREPS)

  • Radiosondes (Sound)

  • Feature Track Winds (GeoAMV)

  • SSMIS Retrievals (SSMIS_RV) of Total Precipitable Water (TPW) and Ocean Surface Wind Speeds(OSSW)

  • Surface observations (METAR, Synop)

  • GPS Refractivities (GPSRF)

  • Ships and Buoys

  • SSMIS brightness temperatures for select temperature and humidity “sounding” channels (SSMIS)*

GeoAMV

METAR

SSMIS_RV

Synop

* Not operationally assimilated by AFWA at the time the study was conducted


Fso configuration ssmis brightness temperatures

FSO Configuration: SSMIS Brightness Temperatures

Data Selection and Source

  • Data obtained from FNMOC via NRL Monterey in BUFR

  • Data processed through NRL developed Universal Pre-Processor (UPP) by FNMOC

  • Resource limitations prevented assimilation of data from more than one satellite at a time

  • F17 chosen to be assimilated because of superior domain coverage for 00 and 12Z cycles


Fso configuration ssmis brightness temperatures1

FSO Configuration: SSMIS Brightness Temperatures

Quality Control

  • Data thinned to reduced the effect of correlated observation error

  • Channels whose weighting functions peaked close to surface or above model top not used

  • Data near coastlines not used

  • Extensive QC….8 separate tests

    • Data over mixed sfc type not used

    • Data over precip areas not used

    • Data over heavy cloud cover not used

    • Two ob minus background gross checks

  • Suspected bad channels “blacklisted”


Fso configuration ssmis brightness temperatures2

FSO Configuration: SSMIS Brightness Temperatures

Variational Bias Correction


Fso configuration ssmis brightness temperatures3

FSO Configuration: SSMIS Brightness Temperatures

Variational Bias Correction


Observation impact on mesoscale model forecast accuracy over southwest asia

Forecast Error Sensitivities at the Initial and Forecast Times

  • Initial Time: 28 Jan 2012 at 12 Z

  • Forecast Time: 29 Jan 2012 at 12 Z

(F/ xf)

(F/ x0 )

(m s-1)

(m s-1)

U

U

(oK)

(oK)


Single day impact results 28 jan 2012 at 12 z

Single Day Impact Results: 28 Jan 2012 at 12 Z

Observation Impact on 24-Hour Forecast (Base Time: 2012012812)

Sound SynopGeoAMV AIREP GPSRF METAR Ships SSMIS_RV Buoy SSMIS

  • Number of obs assimilated indicated at the end of the bar

  • Feature track winds (GeoAMV) largest number of observations and largest impact

  • SSMIS TPW and OSWS retrievals (SSMIS_RV) have a large impact

  • Surface observations (Synop and METAR) have large impact

Larger Impact

% of Error Reduction Attributable to Given Observation Type

Sound SynopGeoAMV AIREP GPSRF METAR Ships SSMIS_RV Buoy SSMIS


Individual observation impact 28 jan 2012 12z

green to blue shaded dot indicates forecast error reduction

Individual Observation Impact, 28 Jan 2012 12Z

yellow to red shaded dot indicates forecast error increase

U

  • Radiosondes

    • Wind, Temps, Humidity

    • Most observations are outside of area of interest but still reduce the forecast error

    • Humidity obs (Q) positively impact “dry” energy forecast

T

V

Q


Observation impact 28 jan 2012 12z

green to blue shaded dot indicates forecast error reduction

Observation Impact, 28 Jan 2012 12Z

yellow to red shaded dot indicates forecast error increase

  • Aircraft Reports (AIREPs)

    • Multiple levels

    • Wind and temperature

    • Automated and manual

    • Some tracks show pattern of positive to negative impact over the track (valid time of ob?)

U

V

T


Observation impact 28 jan 2012 12z1

U

green to blue shaded dot indicates forecast error reduction

Observation Impact, 28 Jan 2012 12Z

yellow to red shaded dot indicates forecast error increase

  • Feature Track Winds (GeoAMVs)

    • Multiple levels

    • Number of observations varies greatly day to day

V


Observation impact 28 jan 2012 12z2

green to blue shaded dot indicates forecast error reduction

Observation Impact, 28 Jan 2012 12Z

yellow to red shaded dot indicates forecast error increase

P (all)

P (used)

V(all)

  • METARs

    • Wind, Temps, Pressure, Humidity

    • Nearly 50% of observations are not used mostly in complex terrain

    • Humidity obs (Q) positively impact “dry” energy forecast

Q(all)

V(used)

T(all)

T(used)

U(all)

U(used)

Q(all)

black dot indicates the ob not used


Observation impact 28 jan 2012 12z3

Ship

T

green to blue shaded dot indicates forecast error reduction

Observation Impact, 28 Jan 2012 12Z

yellow to red shaded dot indicates forecast error increase

GPSRF

  • GPS Refractivities (GPSRF)

    • Refractivity

    • Multiple levels

    • Generally only 1- 3 observations in the domain

    • Generally the highest impact per ob

  • Ship

    • Mostly temp & winds

    • A few press & humidity

    • Can include buoys

  • Buoy

    • Same as ships

    • From buoy data center

Buoy

T


Monthly average observation impact january 2012

Monthly Average Observation Impact: January 2012

Average Observation Impact on 24-Hour Forecast (1-29 January 2012)

Sound SynopGeoAMV AIREP GPSRF METAR Ships SSMIS_RV Buoy SSMIS

Larger Impact

% of Error Reduction Attributable to Given Observation Type

Combined affect of SSMI/S (retrievals of ocean surface wind speed, total precipitable water, and brightness temperatures for temperature and humidity channels) is nearly 15% of the total error reduction achieved through the assimilation of all observations

Sound SynopGeoAMV AIREP GPSRF METAR Ships SSMIS_RV Buoy SSMIS


Summary

Summary

  • The observation impact assessment tool Forecast Sensitivity to Observations was used to determine the relative impact of various types of weather observations on 24-hour WRF model forecast accuracy over portions of South West Asia

  • The system was modified so SSMIS brightness temperatures were assimilated and their impact assessed

  • On average, the assimilation of SSMIS brightness temperatures, total precipitable water, and ocean surface wind speeds accounted for nearly 15% of the error reduction achieved through the assimilation of all observations


Future work

Future Work

  • Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) System

  • AFWA recently transitioned from WRF DA to GSI

  • AFWA had NCAR modify FSO to work with the GSI

  • Validation efforts underway

  • New capabilities

    • observation impact by level and by channel

    • Capacity to determine impact for multiple satellite sensors

  • Additional Domains


  • Login