DOCSLIB.ORG

TC Modelling and Data Assimilation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tropical Cyclone Modeling and Data Assimilation Jason Sippel NOAA AOML/HRD 2021 WMO Workshop at NHC Outline • History of TC forecast improvements in relation to model development • Ongoing developments • Future direction: A new model History: Error trends Official TC Track Forecast Errors: • Hurricane track forecasts 1990-2020 have improved markedly 300 • The average Day-3 forecast location error is 200 now about what Day-1 error was in 1990 100 • These improvements are 1990 2020 largely tied to improvements in large- scale forecasts History: Error trends • Hurricane track forecasts have improved markedly • The average Day-3 forecast location error is now about what Day-1 error was in 1990 • These improvements are largely tied to improvements in large- scale forecasts History: Error trends Official TC Intensity Forecast Errors: 1990-2020 • Hurricane intensity 30 forecasts have only recently improved 20 • Improvement in intensity 10 forecast largely corresponds with commencement of 0 1990 2020 Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project HFIP era History: Error trends HWRF Intensity Skill 40 • Significant focus of HFIP has been the 20 development of the HWRF better 0 Climo better HWRF model -20 -40 • As a result, HWRF intensity has improved Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 significantly over the past decade HWRF skill has improved up to 60%! Michael Talk focus: How better use of data, particularly from recon, has helped improve forecasts Michael Talk focus: How better use of data, particularly from recon, has helped improve forecasts History: Using TC Observations • US has used dropsondes Dropsonde impact on GFS TC track for TC model forecast 20 improvement since 1997 With drops better 0 • Aberson (2010, 2011) With drops worse examined impact of -20 dropsondes in GFS Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 • Significant track Impact of dropsondes in September 2008 improvement globally History: Using TC Observations Observations Analysis • Starting in 2008, it became apparent that assimilating 88D Doppler velocity could improve coastal TC forecasts Observations Analysis • Assimilating radar data significantly improved analyses and forecasts of Hurricane Humberto History: Using TC Observations Fcst. & Obs. Maximum winds 40 Observation Forecasts • Starting in 2008, it became apparent that 20 assimilating 88D Doppler velocity could improve NO Doppler coastal TC forecasts 0 40 • Assimilating radar data significantly improved 20 analyses and forecasts of Hurricane Humberto WITH Doppler 0 Date è History: Using TC Observations Experimental & Operational Operational Wind Errors (No TDR) • Subsequent work 20 showed forecast 15 improvements from assimilating tail Doppler 10 radar (TDR) velocity from NOAA recon 5 Experimental (with TDR) Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 • These results led to a Maximum wind errors from operational dedicated effort to forecasts (no TDR) and an experimental system that assimilated TDR data. assimilate TDR operationally History: Using TC Observations Fcst. & Obs. Maximum winds 80 NO TDR DATA • HWRF forecast TDR data began being assimilated in HWRF in 2013 40 * * Observed • For weak storms like 80 WITH TDR DATA Karen (left), there was substantial improvement of a positive intensity 40 * bias in HWRF * Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 History: Using TC Observations • Results worse over larger sample 2013 HWRF recon impact: Intensity • Major problem No recon 20 Recon was short-term forecast degradation 10 • Cause was physics Larger errors and data with recon assimilation 0 deficiencies for Day1 Day2 Day3 Day4 Day5 strong storms History: HWRF improvements Fcst. & Obs. Maximum winds • Increasing resolution AND improving physics 80 (diffusion/mixing) are necessary 40 • The challenge is to make Observation physics changes that HWRF: CTRL don’t make every TD a HWRF: High-res + Improve Phys. 0 Cat 5 Experimental OU HWRF forecasts of RI of Hurricane Patricia History: HWRF improvements Experimental & Operational Intensity Errors • Data assimilation 10 improvements are also Operational HWRF necessary OU: 3D-EnsVar OU: 4D-Ensvar 6 • Experimental OU system with better data assimilation system 2 performs much better Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Vmax errors in operational HWRF vs the experimental OU HWRF system History: HWRF improvements History: HWRF improvements CURRENT OBSERVATIONS ASSIMILATED BY HWRF INCLUDE: • Conventional observations (radiosondes, dropwindsondes, aircraft, ships, buoys, surface observations over land, scatterometer, etc) • NEXRAD 88-D Doppler velocity • ALL reconnaissance (HDOB, TDR) • Atmospheric motion vectors • Clear-sky satellite radiance observations History: HWRF improvements • Recon benefit assessed in 2016-2018 Intensity error in 2019 HWRF high impact storms No recon 20 Recon • Many major hurricanes in this sample 10 • Recon has a clear 0 positive impact on Day1 Day2 Day3 Day4 Day5 intensity, 10-15% improvement through 72h History: Recent Performance Intensity skill: Near-CONUS • Model intensity skill varies HWRF greatly by region 60 CTCX IVCN • Highest skill is where we have 40 the most data (esp. HWRF) 20 0 Where the P3 flies (circles) Intensity skill: MDR HWRF 60 CTCX Near- IVCN CONUS 40 MDR 20 0 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 History: Recent Changes Example of end-point drop positions “End-point” dropsondes from USAF C-130 missions • Dropsondes at end-points of “alpha” pattern from C-130 missions tested in 2017 • Data denial tests suggested a Impact on intensity skill 10% impact on intensity skill 30 15 • Based on these results, this Positive 0 practice was implemented Negative -15 operationally in 2018 -30 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Brief summary • Track and intensity errors are both improving • DA & Physics improvements jointly improve model performance • Significant improvements in HWRF DA system and data usage Outline • History of TC forecast improvements in relation to model development • Ongoing developments • Future direction: A new model Ongoing developments • Upgrade to GFSV16 in March included better Additional recon impact on GFS track HB20 (basin-scale H220) use of dropsondes and HB20 – no dropsondes flight-level data 12 8 • Added data improves 4 Added data better entire NATL sample track 0 Mesonet test: Intensity Error (kt) Added data worse by ~5% -4 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Day 7 • Higher impact in cycles with data & strong storms Ongoing developments • Ongoing work assessing how best to deploy dropsondes Dropsonde Test: Intensity Error using basin-scale HWRF ALL DROPSONDES NO DROPSONDES • Dropsondes directly benefit track by 5-10% and intensity by 10-15% Mesonet test: Intensity Error (kt) • Removing dropsondes anywhere (e.g., inner core vs. environment, etc.) has Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 negative consequences Ongoing developments Mesonet test: Track Error (km) • Majority of HWRF H221 development thus far has 200 H221 + MESONET/METAR focused over ocean 100 • Known physics issues over 0 land need to be addressed Mesonet test: Intensity Error (kt) 20 • Major sources of data over land not currently assimilated 10 0 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Ongoing developments Mesonet test: Track Error (km) • Ongoing work is examining H221 the impact of mesonet and 200 H221 + MESONET/METAR METAR data on HWRF 100 • Initial results show a large 0 positive track benefit and Mesonet test: Intensity Error (kt) smaller benefit for intensity 20 and other metrics 10 0 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Ongoing developments Improving the DA system improves analyses High-frequency full cycling alleviates imbalance. 3DEnVAR – 6h 3DEnVAR – 1h Courtesy Xuguang Wang, HFIP partner Ongoing developments Improving the DA system improves analyses 4DEnVAR alleviates imbalance as well. 3DEnVAR – 6h 4DEnVAR – 6h Courtesy Xuguang Wang, HFIP partner Outline • History of TC forecast improvements in relation to model development • Ongoing developments • Future direction: A new model Future direction: HAFS (Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System) Future direction: HAFS (Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System) MAJOR BENEFITS OF HAFS: • More flexible / capable data assimilation system than HWRF • Much better use of satellite data than HWRF • Realistic storm interaction, not possible in HWRF RESULT: • Better initialization of vortex and environment • Improved track and intensity forecasts Conclusions • NOAA TC prediction is undergoing dramatic advancements, lead by improvements in global models and HWRF • We are using more of the available data in DA • Long term plans address ongoing issues and allow for greater data usage • The above factors should contribute to intensity improvement in particular .
Recommended publications
  • AN INTRODUCTION to DATA ASSIMILATION the Availability Of

    AN INTRODUCTION to DATA ASSIMILATION the Availability Of

    AN INTRODUCTION TO DATA ASSIMILATION AMIT APTE Abstract. This talk will introduce the audience to the main features of the problem of data assimilation, give some of the mathematical formulations of this problem, and present a specific example of application of these ideas in the context of Burgers' equation. The availability of ever increasing amounts of observational data in most fields of sciences, in particular in earth sciences, and the exponentially increasing computing resources have together lead to completely new approaches to resolving many of the questions in these sciences, and indeed to formulation of new questions that could not be asked or answered without the use of these data or the computations. In the context of earth sciences, the temporal as well as spatial variability is an important and essential feature of data about the oceans and the atmosphere, capturing the inherent dynamical, multiscale, chaotic nature of the systems being observed. This has led to development of mathematical methods that blend such data with computational models of the atmospheric and oceanic dynamics - in a process called data assimilation - with the aim of providing accurate state estimates and uncertainties associated with these estimates. This expository talk (and this short article) aims to introduce the audience (and the reader) to the main ideas behind the problem of data assimilation, specifically in the context of earth sciences. I will begin by giving a brief, but not a complete or exhaustive, historical overview of the problem of numerical weather prediction, mainly to emphasize the necessity for data assimilation. This discussion will lead to a definition of this problem.
  • Evolution of NOAA's Observing System Integrated Analysis (NOSIA)

    Evolution of NOAA's Observing System Integrated Analysis (NOSIA)

    Evolution of NOAA’s Observing System Integrated Analysis (NOSIA) Presented to the 13th Symposium on Societal Applications: Policy, Research and Practice (paper 9.1) Louis Cantrell Jr., and D. Helms, R. C. Reining, A. Pratt, B. Priest, and V. Ries 98th Annual Meeting American Meteorological Society Austin, Texas Overview 1 How NOSIA Informs Portfolio Decision Making 2 How NOSIA is Evolving Observing System Portfolio Management 3 System Engineering Measure of Effectiveness Each point on the Efficient Frontier represents an optimum Portfolio of Observing Programs within a Constrained Budget utcomes) O Measure of Effectiveness Measure Effectiveness of (MoE: Cost 4 Capability Improvement Prioritization NOAA Emerging Technologies for Observations Workshop Sponsored by the NOAA Observing Systems Council August 22-23, 2017 - NCWCP Identifying Capability Improvements for the Greatest NOAA -wide Benefit ▪ National Water Level Observation Network ▪ Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Buoy Ocean Profiles ▪ Commercial Fisheries Dependent Data Surveys ▪ ARGO ▪ Integrated Ocean Observing System Regionals ▪ Animal Borne Sensors ▪ National Observer Program (NOP) ▪ Drifting Buoy Network ▪ NEXRAD Precipitation Products ▪ Program-funded Habitat Surveys ▪ Coastal Weather Buoys Atmospheric Surface Observations ▪ Recreational Fish Surveys ▪ Historical Habitat Databases ▪ Chartered Vessels Research ▪ NWS Upper Air Soundings ▪ Coastal-Marine Automated Network ▪ GOES Imagery ▪ NERR_SWMP ▪ Automated Weather Observing System ▪ Global Ocean Observing System Carbon Network
  • Radar Data Assimilation

    Radar Data Assimilation

    Radar Data Assimilation David Dowell Assimilation and Modeling Branch NOAA/ESRL/GSD, Boulder, CO Acknowledgment: Warn-on-Forecast project Radar Data Assimilation (for analysis and prediction of convective storms) David Dowell Assimilation and Modeling Branch NOAA/ESRL/GSD, Boulder, CO Acknowledgment: Warn-on-Forecast project Atmospheric Data Assimilation Definition: using all available information – observations and physical laws (numerical models) – to estimate as accurately as possible the state of the atmosphere (Talagrand 1997) Atmospheric Data Assimilation Definition: using all available information – observations and physical laws (numerical models) – to estimate as accurately as possible the state of the atmosphere (Talagrand 1997) Applications: 1. Initializing NWP models NOAA NCEP, NCAR RAL Atmospheric Data Assimilation Definition: using all available information – observations and physical laws (numerical models) – to estimate as accurately as possible the state of the atmosphere (Talagrand 1997) Applications: 1. Initializing NWP models NOAA NCEP, NCAR RAL 2. Diagnosing atmospheric processes (analysis) Schultz and Knox 2009 Assimilating a Radar Observation radar observation (Doppler velocity, reflectivity, …) gridded model fields (wind, temperature, What field(s) should the radar ob. should affect? pressure, humidity, By how much? And how far from the ob.? rain, snow, …) determined by background error covariances (b.e.c.) Various methods have been developed for estimating and using b.e.c.: 3DVar, 4DVar, EnKF, hybrid, … Most
  • 5B.2 4-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation for the Weather Research and Forecasting Model

    5B.2 4-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation for the Weather Research and Forecasting Model

    5B.2 4-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation for the Weather Research and Forecasting Model Xiang-Yu Huang*1, Qingnong Xiao1, Xin Zhang2, John Michalakes1, Wei Huang1, Dale M. Barker1, John Bray1, Zaizhong Ma1, Tom Henderson1, Jimy Dudhia1, Xiaoyan Zhang1, Duk-Jin Won3, Yongsheng Chen1, Yongrun Guo1, Hui-Chuan Lin1, Ying-Hwa Kuo1 1National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA 2University of Hawaii, Hawaii, USA 3Korean Meteorological Administration, Seoul, South Korea 1. Introduction The 4D-Var prototype was built in 2005 and has under continuous refinement since then. Many single observation experiments have been carried out to The 4-dimensional variational data assimilation validate the correctness of the 4D-Var formulation. A (4D-Var) (Le Dimet and Talagrand, 1986; Lewis and series of real data experiments have been conducted to Derber, 1985) has been pursued actively by research assess the performance of the 4D-Var (Huang et al. community and operational centers over the past two th 2006). Another year of fast development of 4D-Var has decades. The 5 generation Pennsylvania State led to the completion of a basic system, which will be University – National Center for Atmospheric Research described in section 3. mesoscale model (MM5) based 4D-Var (Zou et al. 1995; Ruggiero et al. 2006), for example, has been widely used for more than 10 years. There are also 2. The WRF 4D-Var Algorithm successful operational implementations of 4D-Var (e.g. Rabier et al. 2000). The WRF 4D-Var follows closely the incremental The 4D-Var technique has a number of advantages 4D-Var formulation of Courtier et al.
  • NCEP Synergy Meeting Highlights: March 27, 2017

    NCEP Synergy Meeting Highlights: March 27, 2017

    NCEP Synergy Meeting Highlights: March 27, 2017 This meeting was led by Mark Klein (WPC) and attended by Steven Earle (NCO); Glenn White ​ (GCWMB); Israel Jirak (SPC); Mike Brennan (NHC) Scott Scallion (MDL); Brian Miretsky (ER); ​ ​ Jack Settelmaier (SR); Andy Edman (WR); John Eise (CR), and Curtis Alexander (ESRL). 1. NOTES FROM NCO (Steven Earle) ​ ​ RTMA/URMA - Implementation delayed until May 2 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-17rtma_urma.htm ​ LMP/GLMP - Implementation scheduled for 3/29 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-22lamp_glmpaaa.htm ​ ECMWF-MOS - Implementation tentatively scheduled for 3/30; Likely to delay at least a week. Internal NWS only NHC Guidance Suite (NHC only) - Scheduled implementation in mid-May http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/pns17-09chghurche77removal.htm ​ ESTOFS-Atlantic - Feedback due by COB today with implementation April 25 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-34extratropical.htm ​ NWM - 30-day IT stability test scheduled to begin today. Implementation scheduled for early May. SCN to be released soon. GFS - 30-day IT stability test scheduled to begin in May; Implementation scheduled for mid-June. SCN will be released in early May. CMAQ - CONUS only upgrade. Evaluation and IT stability test expected to start at the end of April PETSS/ETSS - NCO began work on the upgrade; Evaluation and IT stability expected to start in early May 2. NOTES FROM EMC 2a. Global Climate and Weather Modeling Branch (GCWMB) (Glenn White): ​ The Office of the Director has approved the implementation of the GFS NEMS. The 30-day IT test is now scheduled for May and implementation is scheduled for mid-June.
  • Assimilation of GOES-16 Radiances and Retrievals Into the Warn-On-Forecast System

    Assimilation of GOES-16 Radiances and Retrievals Into the Warn-On-Forecast System

    MAY 2020 J O N E S E T A L . 1829 Assimilation of GOES-16 Radiances and Retrievals into the Warn-on-Forecast System THOMAS A. JONES,PATRICK SKINNER, AND NUSRAT YUSSOUF Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, and National Severe Storms Laboratory, and University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Downloaded from http://journals.ametsoc.org/mwr/article-pdf/148/5/1829/4928277/mwrd190379.pdf by NOAA Central Library user on 11 August 2020 KENT KNOPFMEIER AND ANTHONY REINHART Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, and National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma XUGUANG WANG University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma KRISTOPHER BEDKA AND WILLIAM SMITH JR. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia RABINDRA PALIKONDA Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Hampton, Virginia (Manuscript received 14 November 2019, in final form 28 January 2020) ABSTRACT The increasing maturity of the Warn-on-Forecast System (WoFS) coupled with the now operational GOES-16 satellite allows for the first time a comprehensive analysis of the relative impacts of assimilating GOES-16 all-sky 6.2-, 6.9-, and 7.3-mm channel radiances compared to other radar and satellite observations. The WoFS relies on cloud property retrievals such as cloud water path, which have been proven to increase forecast skill compared to only assimilating radar data and other conventional observations. The impacts of assimilating clear-sky radiances have also been explored and shown to provide useful information on midtropospheric moisture content in the near-storm environment. Assimilation of all-sky radiances adds a layer of complexity and is tested to determine its effectiveness across four events occurring in the spring and summer of 2019.
  • 2020 Infra Surface Weather Observations

    2020 Infra Surface Weather Observations

    Surface Weather Observations Comparison of Various Observing Systems Scott Landolt & Matthias Steiner National Center for Atmospheric Research [email protected] USHST Infrastructure Summit 12 – 13 March 2020 in Washington, DC © 2020 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 1 Surface Stations & Reporting Frequency Station Type Frequency of Reports Automated Surface 5 minutes Observing System (ASOS) (limited access to 1 minute data) Automated Weather 20 minutes Observing System (AWOS) 15 minutes (standard), can be Road Weather Information more frequent but varies state to System (RWIS) state and even site to site 5 – 15 minutes, can vary from Mesonet station to station Iowa station network © 2020 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 2 Reporting Variables Weather Variable ASOS AWOS RWIS Mesonet Temperature X X X X Relative X X X X Humidity/Dewpoint Wind Speed/Direction X X X X Barometric Pressure X X X X Ceiling Height X X X X Visibility X X X X Present Weather X X X X Precipitation X X X X Accumulation Road Condition X X X X X – All Stations Report X – Some Stations Report X – No Stations Report © 2020 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 3 Station Siting Requirements Station Type Siting Areal Representativeness Automated Surface Miles (varies depending on Airport grounds, unobstructed Observing System (ASOS) local conditions & weather) Automated Weather Miles (varies depending on Airport grounds, unobstructed Observing System (AWOS) local conditions & weather) Next to roadways, can be in canyons, valleys, mountain
  • The Impact of Dropsonde and Extra Radiosonde Observations During NAWDEX in Autumn 2016

    The Impact of Dropsonde and Extra Radiosonde Observations During NAWDEX in Autumn 2016

    FEBRUARY 2020 S C H I N D L E R E T A L . 809 The Impact of Dropsonde and Extra Radiosonde Observations during NAWDEX in Autumn 2016 MATTHIAS SCHINDLER Meteorologisches Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat,€ Munich, Germany MARTIN WEISSMANN Hans-Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Munich, Germany, and Institut fur€ Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universitat€ Wien, Vienna, Austria ANDREAS SCHÄFLER Institut fur€ Physik der Atmosphare,€ Deutsches Zentrum fur€ Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany GABOR RADNOTI European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom (Manuscript received 2 May 2019, in final form 18 November 2019) ABSTRACT Dropsonde observations from three research aircraft in the North Atlantic region, as well as several hundred additionally launched radiosondes over Canada and Europe, were collected during the international North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment (NAWDEX) in autumn 2016. In addition, over 1000 dropsondes were deployed during NOAA’s Sensing Hazards with Operational Unmanned Technology (SHOUT) and Reconnaissance missions in the west Atlantic basin, supplementing the conven- tional observing network for several intensive observation periods. This unique dataset was assimilated within the framework of cycled data denial experiments for a 1-month period performed with the global model of the ECMWF. Results show a slightly reduced mean forecast error (1%–3%) over the northern Atlantic and Europe by assimilating these additional observations, with the most prominent error reductions being linked to Tropical Storm Karl, Cyclones Matthew and Nicole, and their subsequent interaction with the midlatitude waveguide. The evaluation of Forecast Sensitivity to Observation Impact (FSOI) indicates that the largest impact is due to dropsondes near tropical storms and cyclones, followed by dropsondes over the northern Atlantic and additional Canadian radiosondes.
  • Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characterization

    Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characterization

    Wireless Sensor Network, 2020, 12, 1-11 https://www.scirp.org/journal/wsn ISSN Online: 1945-3086 ISSN Print: 1945-3078 Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characterization Michael Bolt, J. Craig Prather, Tyler Horton, Mark Adams Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA How to cite this paper: Bolt, M., Prather, Abstract J.C., Horton, T. and Adams, M. (2020) Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne A low-cost airborne sensor mote has been designed for deployment en masse Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characteri- to characterize atmospheric conditions. The designed environmental sensing zation. Wireless Sensor Network, 12, 1-11. mote, or eMote, was inspired by the natural shape of auto-rotating maple https://doi.org/10.4236/wsn.2020.121001 seeds to fall slowly and gather data along its descent. The eMotes measure Received: January 2, 2020 and transmit temperature, air pressure, relative humidity, and wind speed es- Accepted: January 28, 2020 timates alongside GPS coordinates and timestamps. Up to 2080 eMotes can Published: January 31, 2020 be deployed simultaneously with a 1 Hz sampling rate, but the system capac- Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and ity increases by 2600 eMotes for every second added between samples. All Scientific Research Publishing Inc. measured and reported data falls within accuracy requirements for reporting This work is licensed under the Creative with both the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the National Commons Attribution International Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This paper presents the License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ design and validation of the eMote system alongside discussions on the imple- Open Access mentation of a large-scale, low-cost sensor network.
  • Relative Forecast Impact from Aircraft, Profiler, Rawinsonde, VAD, GPS-PW, METAR and Mesonet Observations for Hourly Assimilation in the RUC

    Relative Forecast Impact from Aircraft, Profiler, Rawinsonde, VAD, GPS-PW, METAR and Mesonet Observations for Hourly Assimilation in the RUC

    16.2 Relative forecast impact from aircraft, profiler, rawinsonde, VAD, GPS-PW, METAR and mesonet observations for hourly assimilation in the RUC Stan Benjamin, Brian D. Jamison, William R. Moninger, Barry Schwartz, and Thomas W. Schlatter NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO 1. Introduction A series of experiments was conducted using the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model/assimilation system in which various data sources were denied to assess the relative importance of the different data types for short-range (3h-12h duration) wind, temperature, and relative humidity forecasts at different vertical levels. This assessment of the value of 7 different observation data types (aircraft (AMDAR and TAMDAR), profiler, rawinsonde, VAD (velocity azimuth display) winds, GPS precipitable water, METAR, and mesonet) on short-range numerical forecasts was carried out for a 10-day period from November- December 2006. 2. Background Observation system experiments (OSEs) have been found very useful to determine the impact of particular observation types on operational NWP systems (e.g., Graham et al. 2000, Bouttier 2001, Zapotocny et al. 2002). This new study is unique in considering the effects of most of the currently assimilated high-frequency observing systems in a 1-h assimilation cycle. The previous observation impact experiments reported in Benjamin et al. (2004a) were primarily for wind profiler and only for effects on wind forecasts. This new impact study is much broader than that the previous study, now for more observation types, and for three forecast fields: wind, temperature, and moisture. Here, a set of observational sensitivity experiments (Table 1) were carried out for a recent winter period using 2007 versions of the Rapid Update Cycle assimilation system and forecast model.
  • Weatherscope Weatherscope Application Information: Weatherscope Is a Stand-Alone Application That Makes Viewing Weather Data Easier

    Weatherscope Weatherscope Application Information: Weatherscope Is a Stand-Alone Application That Makes Viewing Weather Data Easier

    User Guide - Macintosh http://earthstorm.ocs.ou.edu WeatherScope WeatherScope Application Information: WeatherScope is a stand-alone application that makes viewing weather data easier. To run WeatherScope, Mac OS X version 10.3.7, a minimum of 512MB of RAM, and an accelerated graphics card with 32MB of VRAM are required. WeatherScope is distributed freely for noncommercial and educational use and can be used on both Apple Macintosh and Windows operating systems. How do I Download WeatherScope? To download the application, go to http://earthstorm.ocs.ou.edu, select Data, Software, Download, or go to http://www. ocs.ou.edu/software. There will be three options: WeatherBuddy, WeatherScope, and WxScope Plugin. You will want to choose WeatherScope. There are two options under the application: Macintosh or Windows. Choose Macintosh to download the application. The installation wizard will automatically save to your desktop. Go to your desktop and double click on the icon that says WeatherScope- x.x.x.pkg. Several dialog messages will appear. The fi rst message will inform you that you are about to install the application. The next message tells you about computer system requirements in order to download the application. The following message is the Software License Agreement. It is strongly suggested that you read this agreement. If you agree, click Agree. If you do not agree, click Disagree and the software will not be installed onto your computer. The next message asks you to select a destination drive (usually your hard drive). The setup will run and install the software on your computer. You may then press Close.
  • Recent Results of Observation Data Denial Experiments

    Recent Results of Observation Data Denial Experiments

    Recent results of observation data denial experiments Weather Science Technical Report 641 24th February 2021 Brett Candy, James Cotton and John Eyre www.metoffice.gov.uk © Crown Copyright 2021, Met Office Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 2 Operational NWP configuration ...................................................................................... 3 3 Data Denial Experiments ............................................................................................... 6 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Results ................................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Continued Impact of POES............................................................................... 12 3.4 Verification of Tropical Cyclone Tracks .............................................................. 15 3.5 A Data Denial Experiment including withdrawal from the ensemble ................... 16 4 FSOI Results ............................................................................................................... 18 5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 21 Acknowledgements