3. Status of WRF Operational Implementations

1

3. Status ofWRF Operational Implementations

WRF Executive Oversight Board

U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C.

28 April 2006

2

AFWA WRF Implementation

WRF ExOB 28 April 2006

Colonel John M. LanicciCommander

Distribution Authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their Contractors only

3

WRF Transition

Program Overview: WRF will support higher resolution, improved accuracy, and

more representative 4D M2M forecasts for command and control, mission planning/execution, and mission support systems

Improvements in mesoscale modeling will allow forecasters to focus greater attention on high-risk weather areas and high-risk aviation impact variables

Program Milestones and Schedule: WRF 2.0.3.1 Oct 2005 Extended Operational Testing

(EOT) begins WRF 2.1.2 Mar 2006 AFWA implementation for EOT AFWA IOC Summer 2006 First operational use AFWA FOC Late 2007 Full Operational Capability

4

WRF TransitionEOT Status

AFWA currently running WRF in non-operational mode

Froze code and began operational testing in Oct 05 Testing two 5km and one 15km window in classified environment

Objective and subjective comparisons to MM5

Both real-time and seasonal test cases evaluated

Testing exposed some quality issues Upgraded to v2.1.2 in Mar 06 and extended testing timeline

Discovered some lingering quality issues

Optimized v2.1.2 to address those issues

Re-initiated operational testing on 24 Apr

5

WRF IOC Testing27 Mar – 21 Apr

Category Overall Average # of responses High Low

Severe 3.2 58 5.0 2.0

Icing 3.4 9 4.0 2.0

Turbulence 3.0 2 3.0 3.0

Winds 3.5 25 4.0 2.0

Clouds 2.9 35 4.0 2.0

Precip 3.2 30 5.0 2.0

Temp 3.2 19 4.0 2.0

SLP 3.2 7 4.0 2.0

Visibility 2.7 18 3.0 2.0

Scale1= Much Worse 2 = Worse 3 = About the same 4 = Better 5 = Much better

G

G

G

G

R

G

G

G

R

Identified Strengths- WRF probability of detection of convection is higher. - WRF surface moisture convergence better defined where convection would occur.

- WRF outperforms MM5 in terms of high level cloud forecast.

- WRF outperforms MM5 in terms of surface winds and surface temperature.

- WRF surface wind forecast along frontal boundary was better at the 6-hour point.

Identified Weaknesses- False alarm rate on forecast convection is higher in terms of coverage and severity.

- WRF has a tendency to forecast large areas of convection in mountainous terrain that never occur. - WRF over forecasts low to middle level cloud coverage.

- MM5 outperforms WRF in terms of forecast visibility reduction associated with precipitation

6

GO Index: Weighted skill scores of mission need parameters combined to form a single, integrated value.

Generalized Operations (GO) Index

13 Oct - 31 Mar

Weighting Scheme Persistence

Bet

ter

00Z cycles 06Z cycles 12Z cycles 18Z cycles

UNCLASSIFIED

WRF MM5 WRF MM5 WRF MM5 WRF MM5

Model Evaluation Period Cycle Theater # of days used # of SS used Index Type Lo HiWRF 102005-032006 00Z T04B 132 6334 1.27 GO 1.2142 1.3268MM5 102005-032006 00Z T04B 132 6334 1.3 GO 1.2414 1.3632

WRF 102005-032006 06Z T04B 132 6334 1.3054 GO 1.2479 1.364MM5 102005-032006 06Z T04B 132 6334 1.3355 GO 1.2734 1.3989



7

8

Joint Global Ensemble (JGE) 48/30 members, 1 1, 7 day, 2 cycle/day

FNMOC Medium Range Ensemble 18 NOGAPS runs (T119, 1 cycle/day)

NCEP Medium Range Ensemble 15 GFS runs (T126, 4 cycles/day)

Joint Mesoscale Ensemble (JME) 20 members, 15/5km, 60 hr, 2 cycles/day

JGE supports init./lat. boundary conditions Ensemble Transform initial conditions Multimodel (WRF-ARW, COAMPS) Varied model physics configurations Perturbed surface boundary conditions

Products: Tailored to support the warfighter planning processes

× 48 × 20

5 km

5km

15km

5km5km

15km

Joint Ensemble Forecast System (JEFS)

GOAL: Prove the value, utility, and operational feasibility of EF to DoD operations.

FOCUS: How to best exploit EF output within forecasting and decision processes.

Products: Tailored to operational wx sensitivities of the warfighter

9

Notional Ensembling RoadmapJEFS and Beyond

1. AFWA/FNMOC Awarded HPCMPO Distributed Center Nov 03 ($4.2M)2. AFWA Awarded PET-CWO On-Site ($200K/yr)3. NRL Awarded mesoscale ensemble research ($1.6M)4. DTRA Ensemble Investment at AFWA: initial (FY05: $35K ), annual ($150K/yr)5. DTRA SBIR to develop reforecast dataset capability for calibration ($850K)6. ARL SBIR ($350K) to develop Weather Risk Analysis and Portrayal (WRAP), and AFWA UFR ($100K)7. NCAR & UW Contract, funded by AFWA Wx Fcst 3600 (FY05: $80K, FY06 $213K, FY07 $100K)

JEFS Design

1

2

6. ARL SIBR Phase II

JGE RDT&E

JME RDT&E

3 3. Probabilistic Pred. of High Impact Wx

6. Phase I

2. Programming Environment and Training - Climate Weather Ocean On-Site

Operational JGE

CONUS Ensemble Prediction System (EPS)

1. HPCMPO DC H/W

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

7. NCAR & UW Contract

4. DTRA Investment

H/W Refresh

OCONUS EPS Windows

5. Phase I 5. DTRA SIBR Phase II

JE

FS

En

d

10

AFWA New Building

$30M in FY06 President’s Budget 188,000 square foot building Includes 16,000 square foot computer room

Flexible design accommodates transformational changes WFHQ, NOAA’s Operational Central Computer System

Contract Awarded to Kiewit Building Group, Inc on 15 Feb 2006 Ground breaking ceremony 24 Mar 2006 with occupancy in 2008 Need to ratify Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA

and AFWA - target June 2006

11

NCEP Status of WRFOperational Implementation

Louis W. UccelliniDirector, NCEP

WRF ExOB MeetingWashington, DCApril 28, 2006

“Where America’s Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction Services Begin”

12

2005 Implementations

• HIRESW – June 28, 2005– Increase Resolution

• WRF-ARW Runs from 10km->5.8 km

• WRF-NMM Runs from 8km->5.1 km

– Turn Off Calls to Convective Parameterization

• Short Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF)– Addition of Six WRF Members – December 6, 2005

• 3 from ARW• 3 from NMM

– Fields Added for Testing in Supportof AWIPS OB-7

– Extension from 63 to 87 hours – August 31, 2005

– Grids Added Over Alaska and Hawaii

Preserves multi-modeldiversity

850T (8/25/05-9/24/05)

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63

Forecast Hours

rms

e (

C)

15-mem

21-mem

12km NAM

13

GFS

CFS

GFDL

SREF

NAM - Eta

NOAH Land Surface Model

Dispersion

Air Quality

2006 NCEP Production Suite Atmospheric Model Dependencies

Forecast

GGSI

WRF-NMMWRF-ARW

L D A S

Sev Wx

WRF-NMMWRF-ARW

NAEFS

EDAS

Rapid Update Cycle

Ensemble Hurricane

Global

Climate Regional

MOM3

HYCOMOcean

ETARSM

14

Upcoming Implementations• Global Forecast System (GFS)

– Hybrid Sigma-Pressure GFS – 3rd Qtr FY2006

– Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) Analysis, with AIRS & MODIS data – 3rd Qtr FY2006

• NAM– Replace Eta with WRF-NMM – 3rd Qtr

FY2006– Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI)– Availability of Level 2 Radar for WRF –

2nd Qtr FY2006• Real-Time Mesoscale Analysis – 3rd Qtr

FY2006– RTMA is First Component of Analysis

of Record (Hourly)– 5km Analysis in Support of NDFD

• Short Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF)– Run 4 Cycles Daily – 3rd Qtr FY2006– Bias Correction for Precipitation – 3rd

Qtr FY2006

• NAEFS – 3rd Qtr FY2006– Increase U.S. Membership from 10 14

Members– Bias Correction and Climate Anomaly

Forecasts– Implement Ensemble Transform Method– Significant file system changes

• Streamlining data files currently on server• http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/changes/

• Air Quality Forecast– Expanded domain to CONUS – 4th Qtr

FY2006– Replace Eta with WRF-NMM -3rd Qtr

FY2006• RUC – 4 April 2006 (Tentative)

– 13 km GRIB2 Grids available on NOAAPORT

• Marine Wave Model– 10 member Ensemble Wave model – 3rd Qtr

FY2006– Great Lakes Wave model – 4th Qtr FY2006

15

Rapid Refresh

GFS

CFS

Hurricane

SREF

WRF

NOAH Land Surface Model

Dispersion

WRF

Model Suite of the Future (2007-2008)

Forecast

GGSI

RGSI

WRF-NMMWRF-ARW

L D A S

Sev Wx

WRF-NMMWRF-ARW

NAEFS HYCOMOcean

MOM3

WRF

RSM?

NAM-

WRF

ChemAir Quality

16

Major Paradigm ShiftWeather Research and Forecast Model

• Community model approach directed more at ensemble forecast system rather a 1-model deterministic approach

• Developmental Test Center (Boulder)– Outreach to academic community– Assessment of new model components

17

Summary

• NCEP is– Undergoing a paradigm shift toward ensemble models in

all forecast applications, based on community model approach

• Has major implications for the WRF program

• Increasing resources will be applied to the SREF

– Implementing WRF-NMM to replace the ETA in O6

– Getting ready for 07 implementations

18

NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction

• Defined requirements for 268,762 RSF • Includes housing 800+ Federal employees, contractors, and

visiting scientists • 5 NCEP Centers• NESDIS research and satellite services• OAR Air Resources Laboratory

• Begin move to new facility September ’07; complete by April ’08

• Space for 40 visitors• Groundbreaking occurred

March 13, 2006

19

End

Documents

3. Status of WRF Operational Implementations