Upload
nikki
View
38
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Results from Winter Storm Reconnaissance Program 2008. Yucheng Song IMSG / EMC/NCEP Zoltan Toth EMC/NCEP/NWS Sharan Majumdar Univ. of Miami Mark Shirley NCO/NCEP/NWS http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/targobs. Acknowledgments. NWS field offices, HPC/NCEP and SDMs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Results from Winter Storm Reconnaissance Program 2008
Yucheng Song IMSG/EMC/NCEPZoltan Toth EMC/NCEP/NWSSharan Majumdar Univ. of MiamiMark Shirley NCO/NCEP/NWS
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/targobs
2
Acknowledgments
• NWS field offices, HPC/NCEP and SDMs• NOAA P-3 and the USAFR C-130 flight crews• CARCAH (John Pavone)• Jack Woollen - EMC• Russ Treadon - EMC• Mark Iredell - EMC• Istvan Szunyogh – Univ. of Maryland• Craig Bishop - NRL• + others who have contributed!
Winter Storm Reconnaissance Program
Objective:
Improve Forecasts of Significant Winter Weather Events Through Targeted Observations in Data Sparse Northeast Pacific Ocean
Adaptive approach to collection of observational data:1) Only Prior to Significant Winter Weather Events of Interest2) Only in Areas that Influence high impact event Forecasts
Past Results: 70+% of Targeted Numerical Weather Predictions Improve
10-20% error reduction for high impact event forecasts12-hour gain in predicting high impact events – earlier warnings possible
Operational since January 2001
4
Valentine’s day Storm
• Weather event with a large societal impact• Each GFS run verified against its own analysis – 60 hr forecast• Impact on surface pressure verification• RMS error improvement: 19.7% (2.48mb vs. 2.97mb)Targeted in high impact weather area marked by the circle
Surface pressure from analysis (hPa; solid contours)Forecast Improvement (hPa; shown in red)Forecast Degradation (hPa; blue)
5
The ETKF spotted the target area
Expected error reduction propagation
Targeting methods – ETKF (application example)
Storm
Dropsondes to be made by An Aircraft
How NCEP WSR program works
6
About the Winter Storm Reconnaissance (WSR 2008) Program
• Took place 17 Jan – 15 March 2008• Dropwinsonde observations taken over the NE
Pacific by aircraft operated by NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center (P-3) and the US Air Force Reserve (C-130s).
• Observations are adaptive – – collected only prior to significant winter weather events of
interest – in areas that might influence forecast the most.
• 35 good flights, around 629 dropsondes this winter due to the joint interests from HMT
• G-IV was not available due to installation
7
WSR 2008 – New Tracks for P-3
• More ensemble members, efficient ET KF codes• No G-IV due to new instrument installation• New tracks for NOAA P-3 flying out of Portland,
OR
8
Winter Storm Reconnaissance (WSR 2008) Program – Verification
• Experiment Design - Global parallel NCEP GFS experiments
– NCEP Global Forecast System running on T126L64 resolution hybrid-sigma with GSI vs. T12628 in the past
– Three sets of experiments• A. GFS run with WSR dropsondes being assimilated• B. GFS run with WSR dropsondes data rejected on all days
• Evaluation methods– Impact: compare differences between the paired runs– Forecast improvement: compare forecast fit to its own
analysis– Fit to observations: spatially averaged over the verification
regions
9
VERIFICATION
• A Special HMT/WSR case
• Verification statistics
10
A special HMT mission Feb 24 00Z, 2008
Large forecast uncertainties (blue regions) on Feb 22 andFeb 23, 2008
Relative measure of predictability
11
A special HMT/WSR mission (Atmospheric River, Feb 24, 00Z, 2008)
12
A HMT/WSR Mission(Surface PWAT)
13
Impact of the Dropsondes
Signal Propagation
(250mb Height)
Forecast improvement
(Surface pressure)
14
Comparison of ETKF signal and NCEP signal(Remarkable resemblance)
The ETKF signal The NCEP signal
15
Comparison of ETKF signal and NCEP signal(Flight track 54, Feb 24 00Z 2008)
16
A special HMT/WSR mission(Observed Precipitation)
17
Forecast Verification for Surface pressure (2008)
RMS error reduction vs. forecast lead time
18
Forecast Verification for Wind (2008)
RMS error reduction vs. forecast lead time
19
Forecast Verification for Temperature (2008)
RMS error reduction vs. forecast lead time
20
Overall results for Temperature(2007 vs. 2008)
21
Overall results for Vector wind
The RMS error reduction could reach as high as 30% in certain verification areas in 2007
22
Overall results for Surface pressure(2007 vs. 2008)
23
Overall results for Humidity(2007 vs. 2008)
24
• Due to the lack of G-IV, 2008 is not an impressive year from verification results
• P-3 tracks are close to inland (Portland, OR) - less likely the data would have a big impact
• C-130 flying lower compared to G-IV• Upper level wind may be important, especially in the Jet
regions – bode well for DWL measurement?
Summary
25
WSR Summary statistics (2004-2007)
Variable# cases
improved# cases neutral
#cases degraded
Surface pressure 21+20+13+25=79 0+1+0+0=1 14+9+14+12=49
Temperature 24+22+17+24=87 1+1+0+0=2 10+7+10+13=40
Vector Wind 23+19+21+27=90 1+0+0+0=1 11+11+6+10=38
Humidity 22+19+13+24=78 0+0+0+0=0 13+11+14+13=51
25+22+19+26 = 92 OVERALL POSITIVE CASES.
0+1+0 +0 = 1 OVERALL NEUTRAL CASES.
10+7+8 +11 = 36 OVERALL NEGATIVE CASES. 71.3% improved 27.9% degraded
26
Winter Storm Damages can’t be underestimated
27
Composite summary maps
139.6W 59.8N 36hrs (7 cases) - 1422km 92W 38.6N 60hrs (5 cases)- 4064km
122W 37.5N 49.5hrs (8 cases) - 2034km 80W 38.6N 63.5hrs (8 cases) - 5143km
Verification Region
Verification Region
28
3 649.5
60
63.5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 20 40 60 80F o r e c a s t H o u r s
D i s t a n c e ( k m )
ETKF predicted signal propagation
29
Precipitation verification
• Precipitation verification is still in a testing stage due to the lack of station observation data in some regions.
20.4416.50OPR
18.5616.35CTL
3:14:1Positive vs. negative cases
10mm 5mm ETS