Upload
georgia-becker
View
52
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
TAMDAR Data Characteristics. Bill Moninger, Stan Benjamin, Tracy Smith*, Brian Jamison*, Ed Szoke*, Tom Schlatter, Randy Collander* NOAA / ESRL / Global Systems Division * also affiliated with CIRA. Our TAMDAR verification tool: the RUC. RUC: Rapid Update Cycle Used operationally at NCEP - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
TAMDAR Data Characteristics
Bill Moninger, Stan Benjamin, Tracy Smith*, Brian Jamison*, Ed Szoke*, Tom
Schlatter, Randy Collander*
NOAA / ESRL / Global Systems Division
* also affiliated with CIRA
2
Our TAMDAR verification tool: the RUC
• RUC: Rapid Update Cycle• Used operationally at NCEP• Multiple versions run at GSD
– hourly cycle time– 20 km grid (13 km at NCEP)– ingests many kinds of asynoptic data
3
A Detailed look at TAMDAR/AMDAR, compared with the RUC model
The following plots show:• Differences between observations and RUC 1h forecasts
interpolated to the location of the observations• We use the RUC forecast valid at the nearest hour to the
time of the observation.• We include more data than what passes RUC QC• Two models are used, as appropriate
– ‘dev’ does not include TAMDAR. This is used in TAMDAR time histories
– ‘dev2’ includes TAMDAR. Used when we’re comparing TAMDAR with other airlines
– otherwise, both ‘dev’ and ‘dev2’ are identical
4
Temperature (last summer, and in Jan)
Best current TAMDAR sensors* compared against the “dev” model.
* GSD TAMDAR ID’s: 5519,5527,5552,5602,5605,7010,7159,8669,
8671,8678,8679
Ascent-Descent bias differences have
been much reduced
Overall bias reduced above 900 mb
5
Temperature bias (April 2006)
All TAMDAR sensors compared against the “dev”
model.
Green (“er”) shows either en-
route or an unrecognized
sounding
Good improvement in temperature bias at
all levels
6
Temperature bias (TAMDAR minus dev) time history (all altitudes)
All TAMDAR sensors compared against the “dev”
model, 10-day averages.
Very good performance in
April.
The dev is not perfect, of course.
For 1 h fcst, 850 - 500 mb, 0 UTC, bias w.r.t. RAOBs is recently between -0.1°C and -0.2°C
7
TAMDAR compared with AMDAR jetsAll TAMDAR sensors
compared with traditional AMDAR jets in the TAMDAR
time and space region:
lat: 37N to 49Nlon: 79W to 101Whour: 12 to 03 UTC
Using ‘dev2’ model to be fair to all airlines.
TAMDAR T Bias now generally as good
as AMDAR jets (except low-level
ascents).
8
rms Vector Wind difference time history (all altitudes)
All TAMDAR sensors compared against the ‘dev’ model, 10-day
averages.
Slowly improving descent wind
error characteristics
On March 8, AirDat started
flagging descent winds above
10 Kft.
9
rms Vector Wind difference with dev2 (Jan.)
Best current TAMDAR sensors compared
with traditional AMDAR (jet aircraft) in TAMDAR time and
space region.
TAMDAR Winds are worse than the traditional fleet, particularly on
descent
10
rms Vector Wind difference with dev2 (April)
All TAMDAR sensors compared with AMDAR jets in
TAMDAR time and space region
TAMDAR Ascent Winds have
improved; not much change in descent winds in spite of AirDat’s
new flagging scheme.
11
RH Bias, Last Aug and January
Best current TAMDAR sensors compared with
the ‘dev’ model.
Includes all obs with RH Uncertainty < 49%
RH Bias on ascent was worse in
January than last August
12
RH Bias, this April
RH Bias on ascent is much improved
since January, and descent is about the
same.
Best current TAMDAR sensors compared with
the ‘dev’ model.
Includes all values of RH Uncertainty < 49%
13
RH Bias time history, all altitudes (TAMDAR minus dev)
All sensors compared against the “dev” model, 10-day averages.
RH Bias for all flight phases has
improved recently. All phases at about
+1.5%
Current dev bias for 1h fcst. w.r.t. RAOBs
at 850-500 mb, 0 UTC
is about -0.5%
14
RH RMS Error time history, all altitudes
All TAMDAR sensors compared against the ‘dev’
model.
RH RMS for en-route is higher, not surprisingly.
For ascent/descent RH RMS is currently
~13%
Current dev RH RMS w.r.t. RAOBs at
850-500 mb, 0 UTC, is ~15%
15
Possible reasons for recent improvement
• AirDat temperature sensor lag compensation
• AirDat RH improvements– replacement of suspect sensors– reorientation of outboard RH sensor
• AirDat flagging of upper level descent winds(?)
• Climatology? (warmer in April)
16
Summary: TAMDAR Error Characteristics
• TAMDAR data have improved considerably since January.• Temperature
– Biases are now generally commensurate with AMDAR jets– RMS errors are worse than AMDAR jets
• Wind– Ascent wind errors have recently improved– Descent wind errors are slowly improving– Removal of upper level descent winds does not seem to make much
difference
• Relative Humidity– Bias is now within +/- 5% at all levels– RMS is commensurate with RAOBS
17
Possible future work at GSD (1)
• Institute automated reject list updating• Evaluate effect of improved vertical resolution• Improve the RUC-AMDAR database
– to include more detailed reject information
• Perform case studies of notable events• Perform OSE’s (not to be confused with OSSE’s)
– to compare different RH errors– to compare different vertical resolutions– to compare different reject criteria
18
Possible future work at GSD (2)
• Evaluate TAMDAR on new fleets– next generation TAMDAR sensor– multiple platform types (possibly 7 in the
near term)– higher altitudes and speeds
• Codify our evaluation strategies– to form a basis for operational data
acceptance criteria
19
Questions?
20
RUC ‘dev’/’dev2’ time history (1)• 9 Feb 2005
– matched the ‘dev’ and ‘dev2’ cycles
• 4 March 2005– profiler-related changes
• 8 June 2005– new aircraft reject list– separate lists for W, T, and RH– (injected an occasional T bug when T is missing from an
observation but W exists)
• 21 June 2005– attempt to fix occasional T bug above
• 26 July 2005– correct fix of T bug above
• 1 Sept 2005– updated aircraft reject list
21
• 13 Sept 2005– New moisture analysis, to match 13km operational RUC
• 3 Nov. 2005– New aircraft reject list installed
• 15 Nov. 2005– Reject obs if ob-background difference is too large
• 1 Dec. 2005– Change aircraft moisture characteristic from 4% to 10% to
match RAOB characteristic
• 15 Dec. 2005– reject winds from TAMDAR obs that are part of a identified
descent soundings
RUC dev/dev2 time history (2)
22
• 14 Feb 2006– Increased aircraft moisture error characteristic from 10% to 12%
• 8 March 2006– (AirDat started eliminating upper level descent winds)
• 15 March 2006– Correctly read GSD QC flags. But started accepting all RH obs with
uncertainty < 49% when wind and/or temperature are QC-flagged as bad.
• 22 March 2006– Accept all RH with RH uncertainty < 29%. (But error above
remained.)
• 28 March 2006– AirDat starts high-vertical-resolution data
• 31 March 2006– Reverted to pre 15 March 2006 code.
RUC dev/dev2 time history (3)