1 / 19

WoF Challenge: “Spin-Up” Problem

said
Download Presentation

WoF Challenge: “Spin-Up” Problem

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Impacts of Running-In-Place on LETKF analyses and forecasts of the 24 May 2011 outbreakCorey K. Potvin1,2, Louis J. Wicker2, and Therese E. Thompson1,31Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies2NOAA/OAR National Severe Storms Laboratory3School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma

  2. WoF Challenge: “Spin-Up” Problem • During first several analysis cycles of storm, convective-scale state & error covariances often poor • Initial radar DA thus inefficient • Goal: accelerate spin-up  longer forecast lead time • Spin-up not just at start of DA – new storms can form after initial development

  3. Running-In-Place (RIP; Kalnay & Yang 2010) • Under ideal conditions, obs should be used once • During spin-up, re-assimilating obs extracts additional information • Step 0: Regular LETKF update • Step 1: Use LETKF weights at current analysis time tntoupdate xa(tn-1)- “no-cost” smoother • Step 2: Covariance inflation at tn-1 • Step 3: Integrate ensemble tn-1 tn • Repeat until RMS difference between obs & forecasts converge (or max # iters reached)

  4. Previous Work • Kalnay and Yang (2010) – RIP rapidly spins up idealized QG model • Yang et al. (2012a) – RIP helpful even given strong nonlinearity (Lorenz-63 model) • Yang et al. (2012b) –perfect-model typhoon OSSEs (WRF) • Yang et al. (2013) – RIP applied to real typhoon • Wang et al. (2013) – iterative EnSRF; perfect- and imperfect-model supercell OSSEs (WRF) • No published real-supercell experiments

  5. EnKF Configuration • NSSL-LETKF – uses Miyoshi’s LETKF core • WRF v3.4.1 -- Δ=3km, 170 × 170 × 51 points, Thompson microphysics • 36 members; 5-min analysis cycles • 3 WSR-88D’s (Δ=6km); objectively QC’d • No mesonet assimilation • Additive noise (Dowell & Wicker 2009) + adaptive multiplicative inflation (Miyoshi 2011; Hunt et al. 2007) • GEFS-NME-based ensemble initial condition

  6. 1845 UTC Experiments • First storm echoes • IC very poor • Best forecasts obtained: • with 3 vs. 1 RIP iterations • stopping RIP after 19 UTC MRMS 1850 UTC Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor (MRMS) reflectivity mosaic at 2 km AGL

  7. 1910 & 1920 UTC Analyses RIP greatly accelerates spin-up of dBZ, w, ζ 2 km AGL dBZ

  8. 1905 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 1905 Z and 2005 Z Dots = interpolated 19-20 UTC NSSL rotation tracks > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  9. 1910 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 1910 Z and 2010 Z Dots = interpolated 19-20 UTC NSSL rotation tracks > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  10. 1915 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 1915 Z and 2015 Z Dots = interpolated 19-20 UTC NSSL rotations > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  11. 2000 UTC Experiments • Begin DA once storms already mature • Mesoscale background storms displaced MRMS 2005 NME prior

  12. Cold pool problem • Default RIP (1 or 3 iters) generates too-cold cold pools • Likely from repeated assimilation of large-innovation dBZ in same locations – analysis increments not retained during forecast cycle, as in Dowell et al. (2011) • What helped: • Use only 1 RIP iteration • Don’t update θ – but colds pools still too cold, indicating other covariances problematic • Only assimilate Vr, and only update u, v, w – still too cold! • Increase obs error estimates (“gentle” approach)– mitigates cold pool bias as well as no-theta update • Final solution: 1 iter with σVr = 4, σdBZ = 8

  13. 2010 UTC Analyses RIP_default RIP_gentle • Spin-up in gentler approach nearly as fast as in default • w,ζ improved faster than dBZ MRMS CNTL

  14. 2015 UTC Analyses RIP_default RIP_gentle • Spin-up in gentler approach nearly as fast as in default • w,ζ improved faster than dBZ MRMS CNTL

  15. 2005 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 2005 Z and 2105 Z Dots = interpolated 20-21 UTC NSSL rotation tracks > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  16. 2010 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 2010 Z and 2110 Z Dots = interpolated 20-21 UTC NSSL rotation tracks > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  17. 2015 UTC 1-h Forecasts CNTL RIP Red = neighborhood (3 × 3) ensemble probζ > .005 s-1somewhere over lowest 3 km Pink = tornado damage paths Contours = 2 km AGL 40 dBZobs at 2015 Z and 2115 Z Dots = interpolated 20-21 UTC NSSL rotation tracks > .005 s-1, .010 s-1, .015 s-1

  18. Conclusions • RIP can accelerate spin-up in radar DA • Added forecast value restricted to 2-3 analysis cycles in this case • Inflated error variances may be useful, at least when mean IC very poor

  19. RIP - Outstanding Questions • Better to restrict to large-innovation regions? • Substantial improvement over simply re-assimilating obs (“poor-man’s RIP”) or Quasi-Outer Loop? • Better or worse than directly forcing updrafts (e.g., thermal bubbles, dBZ-based wnudging)? • How does impact change given less favorable environment?

More Related