View
214
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Bill Kuo
DTC Management Board Meeting
24th January 2013
1
Topics for DTC MB meeting:AOP 2013 plan and prioritiesExecution of AOP 2013:
NOAA-UCAR Cooperative AgreementTransition to next phase of DTC
DTC Science Advisory Board membershipDTC sponsors’ funding and prioritiesDTC Executive Committee (EC) meeting
preparationChallenges
2
Planning for AOP 2013Preliminary guidance for DTC is ‘flat budget,’ however,
potential cuts are possible. DTC has taken into account the initial guidance provided
by DTC MB during the October 2012 MB meetingFinal budget for DTC will most likely not be known until
Spring 2013DTC Task Leads will present:
Accomplishments in 2012Proposal for 2013
DTC MB will need to decide on:What tasks fall within the 85% budget level?The ranking of tasks between 85% to 100% budget
level
3
DTC funding sources (in $K)Funding source FY2011 FY201
2Differen
ce
NOAA/OAR 2,994 2,925 -69
NOAA/HFIP 708 460 -248
USWRP 281 190 -91
GSD 250 250
AFWA 718 855 137
NCAR 250 250
NSF 100 100
Carry-over 129 268* 139
Total 5,430 5,298 -132* Due to period of performance for some projects, some funding is ‘committed carry-over’ for AOP 2012.
4
DTC budget allocations (in $K)Funding allocation
FY2011 FY2012
Difference
Director’s Office 755 746 -9
Visitor Program 200 200
Mesoscale Modeling
1,037 1,029 -8
Hurricane 1,197 1,012 -185
Data Assimilation 772 569 -203
Ensemble 846 827 -19
Verification 623 915 *292
Total 5,430 5,298 -132*Note verification support for T&E activities is included in the Verification task in AOP 2012. In AOP 2011, they resided with task areas conducting the test. 5
Execution of AOP 2013DTC AOP has adopted the period of performance of
March 1 – February 28.Current NWS-UCAR Cooperative Agreement (CA)
will end by August 2013. NWS indicated that:NCAR budget through August 2013 can be
transferred via NWS-UCAR CARemainder of funds needs to be transferred using
OAR-NSF CA (subject to NSF cost-recovery fee)NOAA will administer a competitive RFP in 2013
for the next DTC CAWhen will the process be completed?How would this impact AOP 2014 planning?
6
DTC Science Advisory BoardDTC Science Advisory Board consists of 14 members.Six SAB members whose terms will expire by June
2013:Brian Colle, SUNY Stony BrookJames Doyle, NRL Bob Dumais, ARLCliff Mass, U. of Washington (chair)Tom Henderson, ESRLDavid Bright, AWC
DTC MB needs to discuss:Who should be retained?Nomination of new membersIs the operation of SAB effective? Suggestion for change?
DTC Science Advisory Board
STC Sponsors’ Funding and PrioritiesDTC funding sponsors include NOAA/OAR, NOAA/HFIP,
USWRP, GSD, AFWA, NCAR, NSFHFIP, USWRP, AFWA and NSF have provided guidance on
the allocation of their funding to support specific tasks that fall within the core areas of DTC
NOAA/OAR, GSD, and NCAR have allowed flexibility to allocate funds according to priorities set by DTC MB
Recently, questions have been raised with regards to the allocation of NOAA/OAR funds:Should NOAA (or OAR) provide guidance on the priority for
NOAA/OAR funds (instead of the entire DTC MB)?This change will have a significant impact on DTC operation,
as NOAA/OAR is the largest funding source for DTC
9
DTC EC Meeting PreparationDTC EC meeting will be held 12 Feb 2013 in Silver
SpringExecutive Committee will:
Review and approve DTC AOP 2013 and prioritiesReview and approve DTC SAB membership
DTC MB needs to identify important issues/topics for DTC EC discussionNext phase of DTC, RFP process, use of NOAA/OAR
fundsFuture direction of DTCDTC partnership between NOAA, AFWA, NCAR, and NSFOthers?
10
ChallengesSome DTC task areas are becoming subcritical due to budget
reduction:Should we consider consolidation of task areas?Should DTC focus on certain aspects (e.g., physics)?
SAB recommended DTC put greater emphasis on T&E at the expense of community support. Are we ready to take a large step back from conducting tutorials for
our publically-released software packages?Should we reduce the number of packages that we support to the
community?How can DTC be more effective in R2O?
Development and testing of next-generation NWP systemsMigration toward a unified modeling system (a recommendation from
the UCACN)Development of 10-year strategic plan for EMCEstablishment and operation of an “ECMWF-like” facility
11
SummaryDTC has come a long way toward establishing
a community facility with a robust management structure and planning process, strong community connection and partnership among sponsors.
Joint decision making process by the DTC MB is a very important mechanism for:Setting priorities for DTCMaintaining the partnership among sponsorsSetting future direction of DTC
12
Louisa Bogar Nance
Community Interactions
13
Outline
14
Software SystemsCommunity Outreach Events
Software SystemsFramework for bringing together operational capabilities and research innovations to accelerate the transition of new technology into operations by facilitating carefully-controlled extensive T&E
Close collaboration between DTC & developers is critical to the success
of this work!
15
Software System PhilosophyShared resource w/ distributed development that
includes capabilities of current operational systemsOn-going development maintained under mutually
agreed upon software management planCode repository maintained under version control
softwareProtocols for proposing & approving modifications to
the softwareTesting standardsCode review committee
Additional testing standards to more thoroughly check integrity of evolving code base
16
Accelerating R2O Transitions for GSIBefore and After: An Example
GSD initiates merging the cloud analysis code to the existing GSI
GSD/DTC commit code changes to the GSI trunk as a trial case to set up the GSI R2O transition procedure
17
2008
2010
2009
2012
2011
Issues related to:• Version control• Code portability• Development
coordination• Formal code commit
procedure for external groups
• Coding standards • Standard pre-commit
tests
Can we wait this long for any other R2O transition?
Accelerating R2O Transitions for GSIBefore and After: An ExampleGSD initiates merging the code to the existing GSI
GSD starts to use the GSI repository
Establish DTC community GSI repository with the multi-platform feature
GSD/DTC commit code changes to the GSI trunk(s) as a trial case to set up the GSI R2O transition procedure
Now, it takes about one week for GSI Review Committee to review a code change proposal and about one day to commit.
18
2008
2010
Establish EMC operational GSI repository
2009
DTC leads effort to form the GSI Review Committee (GRC) and set up the GSI R2O procedure (including repository syncing)
2012
GRC finalizes the R2O procedure
2011DTC commits portability related changes to the GSI trunk(s)All GRC members start to follow the
R2O transition procedure
Lessons learned through the DTC’s experience
with GSI are being applied to all other
software systems we work with!
Current Software SystemsWRF – NWP model + pre- and post-processors
UPP – New package in 2011 – community code mgmt plan in process of being implemented
Model Evaluation Tools (MET) – verification packageGridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) data assimilation system,
including GSI-hybrid capabilityWRF for Hurricanes - set of tools for tropical storm forecasting,
including coupled atmosphere and ocean system & stand alone GFDL vortex tracker
Modular end-to-end ensemble system (repository & code mgmt plan established during AOP 2011)
NOAA Environmental Modeling System (NEMS) (repository established during AOP 2011 – working towards code mgmt plan)
19
Software system management for GSI, NEMS and ensemble systems has greatly benefitted from having DTC staff members, Hui Shao and Eugene Mirvis, co-located with EMC staff!
Making New Capabilities Available to Operations (2009-present)WRF (including atmospheric component of HWRF)Enhanced interoperability for NMM-E, including moving nest
Radiation – RRTMGCumulus – Tiedtke, NSAS and Grell (uncoupled only)
New capabilities (3-nest) and physics updates from AOML/HRDHWRFExtension of POM coupling to Eastern Pacific (URI)GSINCAR/MMM’s aerosol optical depth data assimilation functionNumerous contributions from GSD (e.g., cloud analysis) and
GMAO (both new features and enhancements to existing features)METBaldwin-Elmore spatial significance tool (DTC Visitor Program)Capability to convert TRMM satellite data into MET readable
format20
Contributions to Operational Software SystemsEnsemble systemBias correction and downscaling for SREFEnsemble Kalman FilterWorking w/ EMC & ESRL to set-up a code
management plan – DTC will likely be a major contributor to this effort
NEMSEnhanced portability (DTC staff and DTC
Visitor Program)Co-leading movement towards common
repository for external NCEP libraries21
Publically-Released Packages
Philosophy Current PackagesPeriodic releases made
available to the community that include latest developments of new capabilities & techniquesAdditional testing, including
multiple computing platforms and compiler options
Centralized support (in collaboration with developers)Software downloadsDocumentationEmail helpdeskTutorials (online and onsite)
WRFUPPHWRFGFDL vortex trackerGSIMET
22
Registered Users
SoftwareInitial
Release
Registered Users
2009
Registered Users
2013
WRF Dec ‘00 ~1,400* 17,225*
MET Jan ’08 ~300 ~2,000
GSI Sept ’09 0 679
HWRF Aug ’11 0 500
GFDL vortex tracker
Aug ‘12 0 217
23
*All WRF users required to re-register starting in 2008 – number corresponds to those who have registered since 2008
AOP 2012 Code Releases and Tutorials
Software Code releases
Onsite Tutorials
WRF
v3.4 – 6 Apr 12
v3.4.1 – Aug 12
28 Jan – 1 Feb ’13
UPPv2.0 – 1 Nov
1228 Jan – 1 Feb
’13
HWRFv3.4a – 29
Aug 12none
GFDL vortex tracker
v3.4a – 29 Aug 12
none
GSIv3.1 – 20 Jul
1221-23 Aug 12
METv4.0 - 25 Jun
124-5 Feb 12
24
AOP 2013 Code Releases and Tutorials85-100%
Software Code releases
Onsite Tutorials
WRFv3.5 – Apr 13v3.5.1 – Aug
13none
UPP v2.1 – Apr 13 none
HWRF v3.5a – Jun 13 none
GFDL vortex tracker
v3.5a – Jun 13 none
GSI v3.2 – Jul 13 none
METv4.1 - Apr 13v4.2 - TBD
Annual25
AOP 2013 Code Releases and TutorialsJust beyond 100%
Software Code releases
Onsite Tutorials
WRFv3.5 – Apr 13v3.5.1 – Aug
13none
UPP v2.1 – Apr 13 none
HWRF v3.5a – Jun 13 Annual
GFDL vortex tracker
v3.5a – Jun 13 Annual
GSI v3.2 – Jul 13 Annual
METv4.1 - Apr 13v4.2 - TBD
Annual26
Software System for AOP 2013 – 85%
27
ID Activity Description
MM1 WRF/UPP repository maintenance, public release & user support (includes only ARW portion)
MM2 NMME user support
MM5+
EN2
NEMS - implement code management plan, repository maintenance, enhance portability and physics options
HU1 HWRF repository maintenance, public release and user support
HU2 HWRF physics interoperability
HU3 HWRF scripting maintenance
DA1 GSI code management & repository maintenance, public release & user support
DA4 GSI-hybrid coordination, code management and repository maintenance
DA7 Community-base GSI observations pre-processing capability
VX1 Community support - MET release (including MET-TC), user support & annual tutorial
Discussion Items for Software SystemsMaintenance of SREF code repository does
not currently fall within the 100% scenario (only NEMS portion of work currently part of plan) - what does this mean for the future of this repository?
Community support – are we ready to take a large step back from conducting tutorials for our publically-released software packages?
What type of planning should DTC be doing wrt potential upcoming transitions of HWRF to NEMS?
28
Community Outreach Events
Important mechanism for bringing together research and operations to discuss how to work together to advance NWP
29
Outreach efforts – AOP 2012DTC-sponsored events
Mesoscale ModelingAnnual WRF Users Workshop (25-29 Jun 2012)
EnsemblesMini-workshop w/ GIFS-TIGGE working group (June
2012)DTC & NUOPC Ensemble Design Workshop (10-12 Sept
2012)
Verification – invited presentationsUnidata Triennial Users Workshop (3; July 2012)Earthcube Workshop (Dec 2012)Full-day tutorial for Turkish Met Service
30
DTC & NUOPC Ensemble Design Workshop
Focus: Quantification & characterization of uncertaintyMain conclusion: more scientific approach is needed to answer ensemble design questionsPlan for the future:1.Establish standard set of
metrics that will allow for useful inter-comparison of ensemble formulations & dealing w/ uncertainty
2.Establish a small set of target parameters
3.Establish a global ensemble data archive for research (e.g. Ensemble ICs and perturbations, forecasts from major centers etc.)
4.Establish clean experimental program
BAMS paper by Scott Sandgathe, Brian Etherton, Barb Brown & Ed Tollerud
31
DTC-Sponsored Events – AOP 201385% Scenario:
Annual WRF Users Workshop
Proposed but did not make 100%Verification workshopGSI Workshop
32
Given the DTC’s mission to serve as a bridge between the research and operational NWP communities, are we stepping back too much from sponsoring workshops?
Jamie Wolff
Mesoscale Modeling
Collaborators:NOAA’s Environmental Modeling CenterNOAA’s Earth System Research LaboratoryNCAR’s Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology DivisionNorth Carolina State UniversityDivisión de Energías Renovables, CIEMAT, Madrid, SpainUniversity of Washington
33
Activity Description Status
WRF-based community code maintenance and support:
Repository maintenance, email support, code releases, tutorial
Ongoing
Physics interoperability for WRF-based system In progress
Enhancement of NEMS-based code management:Technical discussions, friendly user release, FSOE for internal T&E
In progress
Establish a Mesoscale Model Evaluation Testbed (MMET)*:
Define process for R2O transition, provide datasets and baseline results for cases of interest
Complete
Continue to conduct extensive T&E through comprehensive research innovation inter-comparisons and Reference Configuration designation:
AFWA: WRF version difference and LIS input data set impact*NOAA: Surface drag parameterization schemes impact on a High Resolution Window WRF-ARW baseline configuration
AFWA – Complete
NOAA – In
progress
34
Mesoscale Modeling AOP 2012 Activities
Key Accomplishments
Inter-comparison Testing and EvaluationMMET
35
WRF Testing and Evaluation (T&E)End-to-end system: WPS, WRFDA, WRF, UPP, and METTest Period: 1 July 2011 – 29 June 2012Retrospective forecasts: 48-h warm start forecasts
initialized every 36 h w/ DADomain: 15-km CONUS gridEvaluation:
Surface and Upper Air ((BC)RMSE, bias) Temperature, Dew Point Temperature, Winds
Precipitation (GSS, frequency bias) 3-h and 24-h accumulations
GO IndexStatistical Significance Assessment
Compute confidence intervals (CI) at the 99% level Apply pair-wise difference methodology Compute statistical significance (SS) and practical significance (PS)
36
Functionally similar operational environment testingWRF Data Assimilation and 6-hr warm start
WRFDAv3.3.1 + WRFv3.3.1 w/ LoBCs from LIS w/ Noahv2.7.1
WRFDAv3.4 + WRFv3.4 w/ LoBCs from LIS w/ Noahv2.7.1WRFDAv3.4 + WRFv3.4 w/ LoBCs from LIS w/ Noahv3.3
Evaluation included:Impact assessment of WRF system versionPerformance assessment of the LIS input data set
Current AFWA Op Configuration
Microphysics WRF Single-Moment 5 scheme
Radiation SW and LW Dudhia/RRTM schemes
Surface Layer Monin-Obukhov similarity theory
Land-Surface Model Noah
Planetary Boundary Layer Yonsei University scheme
Convection Kain-Fritsch scheme
37
WRF Inter-comparison T&E
Background Error FilesUsed gen_be to produce seasonal background error
covariance filesCold start cases initialized at 00 and 12 UTC daily for ~15
days during each season (GFS only - no SST or LIS)Pseudo single observation test
Resulting analysis increment from a single observation of the v-component of the wind with 1 m/s innovation
Seaso
n
Dates of cold start
runs
Sum
mer
20110723 –
20110804
Fall 20111016 –
20111030
Winte
r
20120123 –
20120207
Sprin
g
20120401 –
20120415
Sum
mer:
201
207
21
18
Win
ter:
20
120
11
906
WRF v3.3.1 – v3.4 Results
39
SS (light shading) and PS (dark shading) pair-wise differences for the annual aggregation of surface temp, dew point and wind BCRMSE and bias aggregated over the full set of cases and the entire integration domain
Regional Temperature Bias Verification
WRF v3.3.1 w/ Noah v2.7.100 UTC 12h
forecast00 UTC 24h
forecast
WRF v3.4 w/ Noah v2.7.1
40
GO IndexVersion Difference
41
Key Accomplishments
Inter-comparison Testing and EvaluationMMET
42
Testing Protocol MotivationWide range of NWP science innovations
under development in the research community
Testing protocol imperative to advance new innovations through the research to operations (R2O) process efficiently and effectively.Three stage process:
1)Proving ground for research community
2)Comprehensive T&E performed by the DTC
3)Pre-implementation testingat Operational Centers 43
Mesoscale Model Evaluation Testbed (MMET)
What: Mechanism to assist research community with initial stage of testing to efficiently demonstrate the merits of a new developmentProvide model input and
observational datasets to utilize for testing
Establish and publicize baseline results for select operational models
Provide a common framework for testing; allow for direct comparisons
Where: Hosted by the DTC; served through Repository for Archiving, Managing and Accessing Diverse DAta (RAMADDA)
www.dtcenter.org/eval/mmet
44
MMET Cases Initial solicitation of cases from DTC Science Advisory Board
Members and Physics Workshop Participants – great response and enthusiasm towards endeavor
Cases current available within MMET 20090228 – Mid-Atlantic snow storm where North American Mesoscale
(NAM) model produced high QPF shifted too far north 20090311 – High dew point predictions by NAM over the upper Midwest
and in areas of snow 20091007 –High-Resolution Window (HIRESW) runs underperformed
compared to coarser NAM model20091217 – “Snowapocalypse ‘09”: NAM produced high QPF over
mid-Atlantic, lack of cessation of precipitation associated with decreasing cloud top over eastern North Carolina
20100428-0504 – Historic Tennessee flooding associated with an atmospheric river event
20110404 – Record breaking severe report day 20110518-26 – Extended period of severe weather outbreak covering
much of the mid-west and into the eastern states later in the period 20111128 – Cutoff low over SW US; NAM had difficulties throughout the
winter of breaking down cutoff lows and progressing them eastward 20120203-05 – Snow storm over Colorado, Nebraska, etc.; NAM
predicted too little precipitation in the warm sector and too much snow north of front (persistent bias)
User C
ase
#1
45
User Case #1 (Jimenez and Dudhia)
20100428-20100504 – Extended case focused on historic Tennessee flooding event
Forecasts: WRF v3.4 ARW baseline configuration namelist from DTC
WRF v3.4 ARW namelist with topo_wind=1 activated CONUS domain at 15km resolution
Utilized IC and BC files provided by DTC for model initializationUtilized observation files provided by DTC for verification
46
User Case #1 (Jimenez and Dudhia)Wind Speed Time Series
47
User Case #1 (Jimenez and Dudhia)Wind Speed Error (topo_wind=1)
Average wind speed across the domain• topo_wind=1• Observed
00 UTC 20100428 through
00 UTC 20100504 (every 3 hours)
Underforecast
Overforecast
48
Defaulttopo_wind
=1
User Case #1 (Jimenez and Dudhia)Wind Speed 6-day Average Error
Status of testing:• Overall 6-day domain average with topo_wind=1 smaller than default• Reduces diurnal mean bias but does not capture full diurnal amplitude• Looking into reduction of convective mixing and vertical transport of momentum causing overall lower speeds
49
Proposed Activities for 2013
50
Mesoscale Modeling AOP 2013 Proposed ActivitiesID Activity Description
MM1
WRF/UPP community code maintenance and support
MM2
WRF-NMM support
MM5
Enhancement of NEMS-based code management
MM6
MM7
Continue to conduct extensive T&E through comprehensive research innovation inter-comparisons and Reference Configuration designation
MM8
Continue implementation and maintenance of MMET
HMT
Add 2 Atmospheric River cases from HMT to MMET
51
Extensive inter-comparison T&E and RC designationsMM6: AFWA - Two WRF-ARW configurationsMM7: NOAA - Two NEMS-NMMB configurations
NAM physics suite vs. Thompson mpAdditional Western US verification focus for HMT
MM8: Expansion of Mesoscale Model Evaluation Testbed (MMET)Establish NMMB baselines for all cases (existing and new)Maintain infrastructure
Update baselines with new versionsWork with community to ensure utilization
Add additional cases 4 more cases from EMC priority list2 HMT Atmospheric River cases
AOP 2013 Proposed ActivitiesTesting and Evaluation
52
Hurricane
Ligia R. Bernardet
External collaborators:NOAA Environmental Modeling Center
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryNOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
NCAR Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology DivisionUniversity of Rhode Island
University of California – Los AngelesFlorida State University
53
Hurricane AOP 2012 ActivitiesActivity Description Status
HWRF repository maintenance, public release and user support
Ongoing
HWRF interoperability – Thompson microphysics
In progress
HWRF FSOE to match 2012 operational
Competed
HWRF 2012 operational Reference Configuration
Completed
T&E FSOE: HWRF cumulus sensitivity Completed
T&E FSOE: HWRF atmos-ocean fluxes Completed
Sensitivity experiments: Thompson microphysics in HWRF
Current– will complete in Feb
Diagnostics of large scale environment in HWRF
Completed54
POM Flux Test
55
BackgroundHRD (Uhlhorn and Cione) compared HWRF retro forecasts for 2011 against buoys and showed that HWRF ocean does not respond (=does not cool as much as obs) when storm goes by
Example: Katia 09/01/11 init12 UTC and buoy passage 9/4 12 UTCZ
• Fluxes from HWRF atmosphere to ocean are truncated in POM (75%)
• DTC ran 2012 season: control HD12 (75% fluxes) and modified HDFL (100%) 56
Atlantic track and intensity
Track ME: HD12 and HDFL very similarInt MAE: HDFL SS better at 3 lead timesInt bias: HD12 lowers intensity and helps overintensification at long lead timesHurricane Leslie (12L) is the storm with largest impact (large and slow)Pacific impact is much smaller (POM 1D)
57
Leslie bias and 09/04 00Z case
• HD12 and HDFL tracks are similar
• HDFL reduces intensity (as expected).
• Is it because of low SST under storm?
58
Leslie bias and 09/04 00Z case48-h SST control – flux exp At 48 h, control has
cooler SST than flux exp (contrary to linear interpretation)
X = storm center
X
59
Cumulus sensitivity test
60
Test of HWRF sensitivity to cumulus schemes
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120HNSA HKF1 HTDK
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120HNSA HKF1 HTDK
Track
Intens
Tested HWRF SAS, new SAS, Tiedtke, Kain-FritshHWRF SAS performs best for track; differences in intensity have little statistical significance
Statistical Significance 95%Green= HWRF SAS betterRed = HPHY SAS worse
61
Case study: Katia init 09/02/11 18 Z
78-h forecast isotachs (E-W x-section)
HPHYHNSA
HTDKHKF1
Tracks: similarIntensity: different (HPHY, HTDK intensify)
SHIPS diagnostics of shear: initially similar, later different. Intensifiers have lower shear.
Highlights cumulus effects on and control on intensification
62
Large scale diagnostics
63
BackgroundMotivation
EMC is preparing to implement basinscale HWRF in ‘14/15
Extensive collective work in data assimilation, moving nests, trans-Atlantic POM
Need to identify large scale errors – Vx of HWRF 3D fields never done beforeDTC diagnostic study
Evaluated cold-started basinscale HWRF large scale fields
Identified issues that deserve further investigation (hypotheses)
Created benchmark
Example of basinscale domain
64
MethodologyBHWRFforecas
tfields
GFS analy
sisfields
Compute paired
differences
Accumulate differences by
forecast lead time
570 forecast cases 615 forecast cases
~730 possible forecast cases from 2011060318 to 2011112506
Cold-started from GFS analysisRun by EMC
PRE13HI
surface pressureskin temperature3D temp3D u and v3D rel. hum.3D sp. hum.3D geopotential
65
Highlight: 600-hPa zonal wind speed
Basinscale biasSeptember 2011 – 72-h forecastAfrican jet too weak in HWRF
GFS BiasSeptember 2011 – 72-h forecastIn GFS jet displaced to south
66
Highlight: surface temperatureBasinscale biasJune 2011 – 24-h forecastHWRF cold over dry continental areasSuggests issue with inland ice
GFS BiasJune 2011 – 24-h forecastNo significant biases
67
Thompson microphysics
68
InteroperabilityEMC (S. Trahan) has created the basic interoperability
Ability to advect various microphysics mixing ratios and number concentrations (Ferrier only advects one species)
New nest-parent interpolation routines which communicate all microphysics variables (for Ferrier or other microphysics)
DTC improving MP-radiation interfaceTesting by DTC
Irene and Earl, with stationary and moving nestsWinter storm with single domain and stationary nest
DebuggingTests, diagnostics, code analyses uncovered bugs in nest-parent
interpolationEMC corrected; work in progress
DTC-EMC collaboration in MP
69
HWRF w/Thompson MP (winter storm)
Most recent problem solved: snow coming from grid1 into grid2 has a sharp discontinuity (also cloud ice number concentration). Caused by an array dimensioned incorrectly
70
The sum of ice and snow mass is passed from MP to radiation
Their radius is assumed to be small at cold temperatures
Effectively, snow is counted as small particles, with massive (and incorrect) impact on shortwave radiation reflection
Solution: compute effective radii of cloud ice, snow, cloud droplets in manner consistent with microphysics scheme – for Thompson, Ferrier etc.
Implemented in WRF-ARW in RRTMG (RRTMG being tested by EMC for 2013 HWRF)
Will transfer to HWRF *and* NMM-B
Radiation code issues: DTC work
71
Hurricane AOP 2013 ActivitiesID Activity Description
HU1 HWRF repository maintenance, public release and support
HU2 HWRF interoperability
HU3 HWRF scripts maintenance
HU4 HWRF Tutorial (currently beyond 100%)
HU5 T&E: HWRF FSOE – innovation testing
HU7 T&E: Diagnostics and sensitivity experiments for HWRF
HU6 T&E: HWRF FSOE – innovation testing (currently beyond 100%)
72
T&E for AOP 2013
Is it cost effective to maintain a HWRF FSOE to do 1 T&E this year?? Recommend expanding to at least 2 T&E activities
73
Work with the research and operational communities to determine priorities
Follow up on 2012 large-scale diagnostic work (hypothesis were formulated and require testing)Noah LSM and initialization of ice-covered land
Could improve surface temperature inconsistencies and African jet placement
Prepare for storm surge and flooding coupling Repeat basinscale evaluation with newer datasets (GSI-Hybrid)
Expand diagnostics to precipitation (CMORPH and Stage IV near/over land)Feature-based analysis of subtropical high and upper level high/lowsSwitch tool to MET, which now provides spatial verificationStatistics conditional on SHIPS: how does model perform when shear is
high/weak; when moisture is high/low etc SAB suggestions
Intercomparison with other HFIP modelsAcquire/organize datasets for case studies
Diag & sensitivity exper - possibilities
74
Work with the research and operational communities to determine priorities
Noah LSM (beyond diagnostic)Could improve surface temperature inconsistencies and
African jet placementLaureano thesis indicates improvement for landfalling storms
Thompson microphysicsImprovement noted in parallel COAMPS could also benefit
HWRFTest innovations devised by HFIP grants program, if
availableDa-Lin’s vertical level distributionFovell’s modified physics
T&E- possibilities
75
Hui ShaoAFWA, NCEP/EMC, NOAA/ESRL,
NASA/GMAO, NCAR/MMM, AOML/HRD, University of Oklahoma
Data Assimilation Task
76
Data Assimilation: AOP 2012 Activities
Activity Description Status
Software Systems: GSI code management & repository maintenance, public release & user support
Ongoing
Software Systems: GSI tutorial Completed
T&E: GSI baseline tests for AFWA Ongoing
T&E: GSI-hybrid for HWRF Ongoing
T&E: NCAR DART EnKF System (2011 leftover)
Completed
T&E: Impact of Radio Occultation Data on HWRF Forecasts
Ongoing
77
GSI Baseline Tests for AFWAMotivation: Assist AFWA with determining appropriate initial configuration of GSI for operational implementation (proper set-up and definition of background error covariance.
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Black-box Run of GSI in SLP forecastsBetween 5/14/2012 And 7/25/2012
T51A (GSI) RMSE T91A (WRFDA) RMSE
T51A (GSI) BIAS T91A (WRFDA) BIAS
FORECAST HOURS
Se
a L
eve
l Pre
s. (
mb
)
78
Mechanism for AFWA-DTC Communications
AFWF real-time parallel GSI runs:
Updates/changes are periodically brought into parallel runs. Focus on evaluating the overall performance of GSI.DTC real-time & retrospective GSI runs using functionally-similar operational environment: Focus on testing incremental changes.• Real-time: “sync” testbed,
uncover the issues• Short-term retrospective: test
individual changes, tackle the issues
• Extensive retrospective: impact study w/ SS, test research/developmental components
AFWF real-time operational WRFDA runs.
• Benchmark
• Oper config
• Benchmark
• Parallel run config
• Archived data /background for retro runs
• DA system switch
• Oper config (updated)
• Benchmark
• Developmental config (suggested from the DTC)
Pa
th
wa
y t
o “
O”
79
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Background Comparison
AFWA(UKMET)-BiasDTC(GFS)-BiasAFWA(UKMET)-RMSEDTC(GFS)-RMSE
Variables
Bia
s/R
MSE (
Vari
able
Unit
)
Functionally Similarity Check
Only differences are input fields (background and observations) and individual changes to be tested.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Analysis Comparison
AFWA BIAS
DTC BIAS
AFWA RMSE
DTC RMSE
Variables
Bia
s/R
MSE (
Vari
able
Unit
)
Variable No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Variable Name T T-120 T-131 UV UV-220
UV-231 q q-120 Ps-
180,181,187
AFWA Northern Hemisphere Domain
80
Real-Time Runs
N<1: GFS+ARW better
N>1: GSI+ARW better
GSI: NAM BE (no GPSRO)
GSI: GFS BE+GPSRO
GSI+ARW runs switched to AFWA parallel run configuration
AFWA GO index:where Sw is the sum of the skill scores, weighted by lead time, for wind speed, dew point temperature, temperature, height at various levels and surface, and mean sea level pressure.
81
N< 1: GFS BE+GPSRO better
N>1: NAM BE/GFS BE (No GPSRO) better
Retrospective Runs: What caused the drop?
NAM BE: Northern Hemisphere BE computed based on NAM forecasts.
GFS BE: Global BE computed based on GFS forecasts.
RAP BE: Global BE tuned for the RAP. combination of global/regional (balance = GFS, Lengthscales/variance = NAM)
N< 1: GFS BE+GPSRO better
N>1: NAM BE betterGFS BE (No GPSRO) betterRAP BE better
NAM BEGFS BERAP BE NAM
BEGFS BERAP BE
Wind Analysis RMSETemperature Analysis RMSE 82
Retrospective Runs: Background Errors (BE)
Vertical LengthscaleHorizontal LengthscaleStandard Deviation
GFS BE
NAM BE
Analysis Inc. from single T
obs testBE factors for Stream Function
Messages Passed to the “Operations”For Northern Hemisphere, the NAM BE or tuned global
BE w/ regional scaling is recommended at current stage.
The DTC is testing the impact of application specific BE, by comparing with the NAM BE experiments. Based on the pending results, application specific BE may be recommended (resolution may play a role here!).
For Southern Hemisphere, BE should be examined separately since the model errors are expected to be larger than those in Northern Hemisphere.
Action taken: AFWA is going to test the NAM BE in their real-time parallel runs.
84
GSI-Hybrid Test for HWRFGlobal GSI-hybrid implemented May 2012. Regional
system is still under development.DTC member of HFIP tiger team targeting at the 2014
implementation of GSI-hybrid for HWRF (EMC (team lead), ESRL, AOML, U of O)
DTC T&E activities focusing on: Building up baseline tests for cross comparison with
other teams’ work:Cross covariance contributed by the ensemble BE
under current NCEP global GSI-hybrid setupGSI-hybrid versus GSI benchmark runs
Testing alternative/reference configurations:Partial/full cycling runs versus cold start/warm
start runsVarying weights of the static BE and ensemble BE
85
GSI-Hybrid Benchmark Tests
NoDAGSI-3DVARGSI-HybridBest Track
•GFS ensemble input: DTC tests show mixed results on both track & intensity forecasts.
•GSI-hybrid using regional ensembles is under investigation and will be added to these benchmark tests.
•Varying weights of static BE and ensemble BE and their impacts are under investigation.
86
Partial Cycling of GSI-hybrid Case study of the 1-d cycling of the GSI-
hybrid prior to the TCvital time shows positive impact on track and intensity forecasts.
NCEP/EMC and NOAA/ESRL are running warm-start (6hr HWRF forecast as background) and full cycling through TC life time. Cross examination will be done once their initial test results are available.
1-d Cycling No cycling
GFS
1-d Cycling
1-d Cycling
Best track
87
Data Assimilation AOP 2013 ActivitiesID Activity Description
DA1 GSI code management & repository maintenance, public release & user support
DA2 GSI Tutorial (currently beyond 100%)
DA3 GSI Workshop (currently beyond 100%)
DA4 GSI-hybrid coordination, code management and repository maintenance
DA5 GSI baseline for AFWA
DA6 GSI-hybrid for HWRF
DA7 Community-base GSI observations pre-processing capability
88
Community-base GSI Observations Pre-processing Capability • GSI observations are required in BUFR format.
Conventional data go through a sophisticated QC procedure prior to being assimilated by GSI. Satellite data are dumped into a data trunk and their QC and bias correction procedure are performed inside GSI.
• The data format conversion and the data QC procedure have become interest of active GSI community users, especially those who would like to ingest additional data types.
• AFWA little_r data files are in ASCII format and, along its pre-processing tool, are used already by AFWA operations and some community users.
• NCEP/EMC has worked with AFWA to adopt the NCEP/NCO pre-processing package. However, the code has not reached the community code standard.
89
Community-base GSI Observations Pre-processing Capability: Wish list
NCEP/AFWA Pre-processing System
• Flexibility to ingest new observation types
• Independent format converter (multiple input format)
• Configurable platform-specific QC
• Different model background for QC
• Code portability• User friendly interface• Configurable setup• Modularized code• Documentation• User support
90
Plans for Setting Up an Initial Community Capability• Review and test the current AFWA/NCEP data
collection and processing procedures in an operational environment.
• Establish a DTC code repository to facilitate version control of the pre-processing capability development.
• Design an acceptable workflow system and user interface that will meet AFWA’s operational requirements.
• Develop essential scripting and coding to accommodate the desired initial capability of the pre-processing procedures, such as adding initial configuration management to the scripts and codes requested by AFWA.
• Develop an automatic and portable configuration and compilation utility so that the system can be easily ported to different computing environments.
• Begin to document the established community capability.
Resources allocated to this activity reduced from original proposal – longer time frame required to achieve ultimate goals 91
DTC will be testing developmental capabilities – focus of tests will be determined by consultation with AFWA. Potential ideas include: ARW BE (domain specific)Increased model topNew NCEP regional bias correction (BC) scheme for
radiance data (by blending global coefficients and ozone information with regional BC)
Moisture channel radiance QC and impactsRadiance channel selectionGPSRO assimilation
Only limited configurations can be tested. Running short-term tests (<monthly) will allow more capabilities to be tested but with less confidence in the results.
GSI Baseline Test for AFWA
92
Aspect of GSI-hybrid to be tested will be determined and coordinated through consultation with EMC and appropriate developers (the “tiger” team). Potential focus:Input from regional ensemblesOptimal weighting for static and ensemble BEFull cycling of GSI-hybridMoving domain for GSI-hybrid
Only limited configurations can be tested (case studies but testing more configurations, longer-period of tests but limited testing components).
GSI-hybrid Tests for HWRF
93
Recommended