summary of stream 2 diagnostics
DESCRIPTION
Summary of Stream 2 Diagnostics . Mark DeMaria NOAA/NESDIS/ StAR November 8, 2010 Miami, FL . ADD Team Members . Co-Leads Ed Rappaport (NHC) and Mark DeMaria (NESDIS) NCEP/NHC W. Hogsett, R. Pasch, C. Sisko, J. Franklin NCEP/EMC V. Tallapragada, J. O’Connor, Bob Tuleya, S. Trahan - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2
ADD Team Members • Co-Leads
– Ed Rappaport (NHC) and Mark DeMaria (NESDIS)• NCEP/NHC
– W. Hogsett, R. Pasch, C. Sisko, J. Franklin• NCEP/EMC
– V. Tallapragada, J. O’Connor, Bob Tuleya, S. Trahan• NWS/OST
– N. Surgi• NESDIS and CIRA
– J. Knaff, K. Musgrave, B. McNoldy, L. Grasso• OAR/HRD
– S. Gopal, R. Rogers, S. Goldenberg , T. Quirno• OAR/ESRL
– M. Fiorino, P. McCaslin• DTC and TCMT
– L. Nance, B. Brown• NRL
– Y. Jin, B. Sampson, A. Schrader • FSU
– T. Krishnamurti, M. Biswas
3
ADD FY10 Milestones •Develop Stream 1.5 concept of operations 6.1.1
•NHC, TCMT, NESDIS
•Synthetic satellite imagery 6.2.1•NESDIS, EMC, HRD and NRL
•Develop first HFIP model output products for NHC 6.3.1•NHC
•Develop capability to use aircraft data in model diagnostic routines 6.4.1•HRD
•Diagnostic Studies 6.4.2•NESDIS, EMC, NHC, HRD, ESRL, NRL, NCAR, SUNYA
•ATCF Upgrades for HFIP 6.5.1•NRL
•Establish first generation HFIP data service 6.6.1•TCMT
•Run SHIPS/LGEM off other models besides GFS 6.7.1
•NESDIS, ESRL and NRL
•Develop statistical analysis system for assessing source of model errors 6.8.1•FSU, EMC
4
ADD Team Diagnostic Formats and Software
• NHC Product Tools– Input: GRIB, NetCDF Software: HPLOT, ATCF, N-AWIPS, grads,
Fortran• NESDIS/CIRA
– Input: GRIB, McIDAS, ASCII Software: Fortran, IDL• HRD Diapost
– Input: Binary Software: Fortran, grads, java, GWT• ESRL
– Input: GRIB Software: python and grads• EMC
– Input: GRIB Software: HPLOT, Fortran, grads• NRL
– Input: IEEE Binary Software: Fortran• NCAR/SUNYA
– Input: NetCDF Software: Fortran, NCL, Matlab• FSU
– Input: ? Software: ?
5
Classification of Diagnostic Systems• Basic
– Can be run after model is completed– Can include comparison with model analyses– e.g.,HWRF post-processing system
• Advanced– Needs info every time step– Must run with model – e.g., FSU statistical error source analysis
• Data Comparison– Requires data and model input– e.g., comparison with aircraft or satellite– Might be basic or advanced – Close relationship with verification
6
Example of Basic Diagnostics:Model Inter-comparison of Large-Scale Parameters
HWRF, GFDL, COAMPS-TC
Vertical Shear SST 250 hPa T
Track Max Wind Land/Ocean Success
Ground “truth”: Working best track, GFS analyses, Reynolds SST analyses
HWRF GFDL COAMPS-TC
Inner grid mean condensate mixing ratio Inner grid mean condensate mixing ratioInner grid mean condensate mixing ratio
Control microphysics Schmidt microphysics Thompson microphysics
Example of Basic Diagnostics: Comparison of Condensate Profiles COAMPS-TC 72-h forecast for Celia: DTG = 2010061912
Pres
sure
8
Example of Advanced Diagnostic:FSU Error Source Assessment
• Start with closed system of full model equations
• Regress each term to tendency errors– “Observed” tendency from
sequence of verifying analyses• Can identify systematic errors
in dynamics and physics
Fig 1: Deep convective heating (10-4 K/sec) for Hurricane Celia, 2010 (9mn forecast – 18z 22 June) from the HWRF model output (upper panel) and the corresponding error term (10-5 K/sec).
9
21:44Z Aug 28
23:03Z Aug 28
09:39Z Aug 29
11:58Z Aug 29
21:00Z Aug 29
22:13Z Aug 29
00:44Z Aug 30
11:17Z Aug 30
13:40Z Aug 30
21:23Z Aug 30
22:31Z Aug 30
23:33Z Aug 30
HRD Tangential Wind Cross Sections from Doppler RadarExample of Data Comparison Diagnostic:
10
Example of Data Comparison Diagnostic:HWRF Synthetic – Real GOES Comparison
GOES Channel 3 (Water Vapor)
6 hr Images 0 to 126 hr at 6 hr for Hurricane Earl starting 29 Aug 2010 at 18 UTC
11
Transitions from Stream 2 to Stream 1
• Adapt stream 2 capabilities to system for operational HWRF– Pre-implementation model tests– Real time monitoring
• Tools for NHC Forecasters• Goal for FY11– Develop stream 1 basic and data comparison
diagnostics for EMC
12
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120 1260
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Water Vapor Band (6.7 µm) ErrorsMAE - AlexBias - AlexMAE - EarlBias - Earl
Forecast Hour
Brig
htne
ss T
empe
ratu
re E
rror
(K)
Example output for HWRF Pre-Implementation Tests
Example NHC Diagnostics• NHC has developed a system to compare vortex structure among the models in real time.
– Output is posted on internal webpage and products are hard-coded.
• Results from the 2010 season have brought to light some important issues with the current models, e.g. the vortex initialization.
13Above: South-north (top) and West-East (bottom) vertical cross sections from the GFS (left), HWRF (middle), and GFDL (right). Vorticity is contoured. Note the differences in the vortex structure among the models.
GFS HWRF GFDL
Schematic of Basic Model Diagnostics System
14
Selection of Sample and
Tests
Read Model Forecasts
ATCF A-decks, Tier 2 data, Full model grib
fields
Routine Data Comparison:
ATCF variables, Synthetic geo imagery,
SST, Large-scale variables
ATCF B-Decks, GOES imagery, SST,
verifying analyses
Intermittent Data
Comparison:Various model
parameters
Aircraft data, radar, polar satellite data, in
situ , ocean
Basic Model Diagnostics Diagnostic Reports