DOC

CURRICULUM VITAE

By Ruby Roberts,2014-03-26 14:55
7 views 0
NCEP/EMC will initiate the discussion toward the development of common Use of real observations or simulated observations in a perfect model framework?

    SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE DISCUSSION

    October 19, 2006, 1 0am 1 pm EST

    Present: J. Whitaker and T. Hamill (CDC), C. Bishop (NRL), M. Zupanski (CIRA/CSU), I. Szunyogh (UMD), Y. Song, Z. Toth and M. Wei (NCEP/EMC) , E. Kostelich (Arizona State Uni.)

Agenda:

    1). Review of progress by each group (with slides if possible)

    2). Plans for the next 3-6 months by each group

    3). Status of benchmark, discussion on unified verification of results

Jeff Whitaker and Tom Hamill:

    Sent 3 slides prior to the meeting. One of the slides shows the schematic of ensemble DA flow with 2 members. The DA system uses NCEP SSI to compute observation operator which maps the model state to observational points. Bias correction is carried out by inputting ensemble mean to SSI. The DA system can be easily switched to LETKF from EnSRF. Several inflation schemes have been built in including additive inflation which is being used to produce the results in the figures. The results without satellite data show that both ensemble DA systems are much better than SSI in the SH where the observations are less. The differences between LETKF and EnSRF are not significant. However, LETKF is much faster, possibly due to the fact that LETKF computes Hx itself, while EnSRF calls SSI. But it is also harder to do data thinning in LETKF. When satellite data are included. Only results from LETKF are shown. They are similar to SSI, except in SH where SSI is better.

Craig Bishop

    Showed 18 slides about moderating spurious ensemble correlations continuing their work on covariance localization for ensemble based Kalman filter data assimilation system. A method of using Smoothed ENsemble Correlations Raised to a Power (SENCORP) moderation functions is proposed to provide flow adaptive moderations functions in comparison with the conventional method used in current DA systems. A fixed moderation function is multiplied in the convention method. This method can also be used to simulate model errors. Again the experiments are carried out on an extremely simple system. The results are positive. Jeff Whitaker expressed interest in testing this method in his ensemble Kalman filter DA system. A full description of this method is expected at later stage.

Istvan Szunyogh:

    Real observations are used for LETKF formulation which uses ETKF solution for a small patch at each grid point. The algorithm is more efficient than EnSRF algorithm during the experiments with and without satellite data. The code has been given to Jeff Whitaker to compare with EnSRF in the same environment. The differences from these two algorithms are not significant right now. Emphasis will be on bias correction of radiance in higher levels. A paper will be submitted in a few weeks. LETK is planned to be operational in Brazil.

Milija Zupanski:

    Work on testing MLEF (maximum likelihood ensemble filter) has begun on using real observations and satellite radiance data. More attention has been paid to bias correction by studying the PDF distribution. He will have more cooperation with people working in satellite data. Dual resolutions will be tested. A lot of more results from the experiments will be expected in the next half year. The results will provide a good comparison with the results from other schemes.

Zoltan Toth:

    Scheduled the next tele-conference in December 2006 after Thorpex meeting in Germany. Grep Hakim will join Thorpex project for regional ensemble data assimilation. Suggested a new benchmark with higher resolution summer case. NOAA Thorpex has requested CPU time on Air Force supercomputers. Proposed a new analysis for shorter lead time of 1-3 hours.

    SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE DISCUSSION

    July 27 2006, 1 pm 3 pm EST

    Present: T. Hamill (CDC), J. Anderson and J. Tribbia (NCAR), C. Bishop and Dan (NRL), M. Zupanski (CIRA/CSU), I. Szunyogh (UMD), Y. Song, Z. Toth and M. Wei (NCEP/EMC) ( E. Kostelich, J. Whitaker and E. Kalnay on vacation or leave)

Agenda:

    1). Review of progress by each group (with slides if possible)

    2). Plans for the next 3-6 months by each group

    3). Status of benchmark, discussion on unified verification of results

Craig Bishop and Dan:

    Showed a new way of doing covariance localization for ensemble based Kalman filter data assimilation system. They provided 3 slides showing how to estimate the forecast error covariance matrix using historical data by modulation. The experiments using this method on a simple system showed positive results. A full description of this method is expected at later stage.

Milija Zupanski:

    After securing accounts on NCEP IBM computers and experiments have started to test his MLEF (maximum likelihood ensemble filter). MLEF is similar to ETKF, except solves for mode (instead of mean) of distribution. It has tested the simulated and real obs in NCEP operational environment. Further experiments are planned.

Tom Hamill:

    After successfully compared their ensemble data assimilation results with T62 NCEP SSI benchmark, using same or less amount of conventional data, some satellite data have been added to the experiments. The preliminary results are very positive. The pace of further experiments is delayed by the lack of computer resources. They are looking NCEP for help.

Istvan Szunyogh:

    Started work with real obs, and applied ETKF formulation to local patches, each grid point at a time. The algorithm is very efficient. They gave the code to Jeff Whitaker to compare with his square root filter. Plan to do more research on use of additive inflation procedures. Studied the effect of imperfect model on DA results, using bias correction. Two slides distributed showed positive results.

Jeff Anderson (Unfunded collaborator):

    No funding from NOAA. Developed a more scalable generic filter, looked at sampling error in ensemble filters. The system runs an ensemble of ensembles (4-8) to estimate the error covariance localization factors. This procedure is very expensive, but only needs to do it once in a while. They argued that this method of generating covariance localization factors will make the filter more scalable and more generic.

Yucheng Song:

    Briefly described a new NCEP T62 SSI benchmark analysis/forecast data set . The new benchmark is based on using satellite data as more groups are ready to handle larger number of observations.

Zoltan Toth:

    Pointed out there is a need for different groups to share some common verification packages in order to compare different algorithms and filters. NCEP/EMC will initiate the discussion toward the development of common verification software..

    SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE DISCUSSION

    July 29 2005, 11 am 1 pm EST

    Present: J. Whitaker (CDC), J. Anderson (NCAR), C. Bishop (NRL), M. Zupanski (CIRA/CSU), I. Szunyogh, E. Kostelich (UM), Y. Song, and Z. Toth (NCEP/EMC) (T. Hamill missed the call, M. Wei on travel)

Agenda:

    1. Brief description of activities in first year - Each group described their work

    and main results

Jeff Whitaker

    Successfully compared their ensemble data assimilation results with T62 NCEP SSI benchmark, using same or less amount of data (in fact, only 75-150k pieces of data were used, compared with ~300k in SSI only data from +/-1 hr window

    used, and even that was thinned). No radiance, radar, or scatterometer data used. Results are very encouraging, 5-10% rms error reduction compared with SSI results (see his slides). Processing of remotely sensed data with same sequential algorithm is not practical, looking for alternative solutions (ETKF?) Tested 3 types of variance inflation methods, difference between successive archived analysis fields may work best, simple inflation by a coefficient almost as good

Istvan Szunyogh

    Started work with simulated obs, worked well. Adapted ETKF formulation, still applied locally (region by region), very efficient algorithm. When switched to assimilation of real observations some bugs got into code, working on clearing up software. Expects some results by end of summer 2005. Looking into use of additive inflation procedures. Analyzing effect of imperfect model on DA results, using bias estimation ideas. Discussed a slide indicating that a relatively small ensemble may be able to well describe low dimensional dynamics for global circulation (PECA-type analysis).

Craig Bishop

    Was unable to hire post-doc, working with Master level student, had to adjust research plans somewhat. Worked on producing large ensembles with ETKF. In parallel, work on generating ensemble perturbations to be centered around NAVDAS variational analysis, similar to M. Wei’s research at NCEP: use

    estimate of analysis error variance derived from NAVDAS to constrain initial ensemble variance using ET algorithm. Reports that successfully used ET technique to inflate covariance: uses ET to transform old archived ensemble data tfor inflating variance in tropics of current ensemble Toth points out link between this work and that of D. Hou at EMC who plans to use similar technique to introduce stochastic perturbations. Plans to experiment with combining ensembles from different sources.

Milija Zupanski

    Hired postdoc, secured accounts on NCEP IBM computers. Plans to test his method, similar to ETKF, except solves for mode (instead of mean) of distribution. Currently setting up software on NCEP machines, will start testing with simulated obs soon, in couple of mos will start using real obs. Plans using bos operators and other applicable software from NCEP SSI code. This will enable quick technology transfer to NCEP operations if research is successful.

Jeff Anderson (Unfunded collaborator)

    Made an attempt to port GFS system to NCAR. Work is not complete, no funding from NOAA. Worked on generic filters, looked at sampling error in ensemble filters. Found a solution where no inflation is needed in perfect model setup. Ran some experiments, without much tuning, with NCAR T85 CAM climate model, real observations, January 2003 cases, using radiosonde and other traditional data, but no radiances. Compared results with GFS T254 operational system (p. 16 of his slides). Very encouraging results, 5-10+% rms error reduction for temperature, even larger reduction for low level wind errors. Problem with winds higher up traced to use of inaccurate obs error variances with ACAR data.

Yucheng Song

    Briefly described NCEP T62 SSI benchmark analysis/forecast data set that he prepared for use by other groups (see below)

Zoltan Toth

    Pointed out few links between external research and NCEP development activities: Connection between model error studies of B. Hunt (UM) and M. Pena (EMC); ET initialization by C. Bishop (NRL) and M. Wei (EMC); Inflation with ET method by C. Bishop (NRL) and D. Hou (EMC).

     nd2). Preliminary discussion on plans for 2 year

    ZT commented that the results by JW-TH & FA are very encouraging, and warrant continuation of ensemble-based DA research work. There was general agreement on this. JW and CB discussed potential for using ensemble covariance information for improving variational schemes. They pointed out the demonstrated ability of variational schemes to process large amounts of data. JA made the point that ensemble-based DA is a new field and there is no evidence that these methods could not be modified to cope with heavy data volume, all agreed on this. MZ mentioned that after working on 4DVAR for 10 yrs, he switched to ens-DA methods because he believes they offer a theoretically more appealing approach. IS & ZT pointed out that CPU limitations on current operational machines should not constrain research aimed at 3-5 years into the future. Focus should be on understanding whether and how much improvements can be gained by using ens-DA methods compared to variational methods. Algorithms should be built with resource limitations in mind, but that should not be the primary consideration at this stage. Optimization of procedures can be considered and will become more important as the research evolves. ZT

    suggested each group to continue their work under their proposal, and the project to keep focusing on ensemble-based data assimilation methods. Work on hybrid methods (where information from a set of ensemble members are used in variational DA) is encouraged but the THORPEX ens-DA funds should support the development and testing of ensemble-based DA schemes. This research has a horizon of 3-5 yrs, as compared to hybrid applications that if funded through other mechanisms may bring some benefits on shorter time scale.

    3) Collaborative work within the project

    ZT discussed the possibility of JW-TH, beyond their own research, playing a central role in trying to build prototype ens-DA system as time goes that would include useful and new results from any of the participating groups. This will be further discussed at next meeting.

Proposed dates/time for next meeting:

    Sept 7, 1-3 pm eastern time

    Sept 9, 11 am 1 pm eastern time

    Proposed agenda:

    1) Review detailed plans for yr2 (each group present their plans)

    2) What should be our stated goal for yr2 as a group? Like for first year,

    we wanted to generate a benchmark, have initial comparison; what

    should we aim to accomplish by end of yr2?

    3) How to enhance collaboration?

The NCEP T62 Benchmark run

     Yucheng Song

    This document summarizes the benchmark experiment done at NCEP in preparation for the inter-comparison of different ensemble-based data assimilation schemes.

MODEL VERSION

    To be comparable to the four independent groups that work on ensemble-based data assimilation (EBDA), we used the executable of global forecast model (named global_fcst6228, which is Triangular truncation T62 with 28 levels) archived at NCEP high performance storage system (HPSS). For the assimilation, we used the executable compiled on March 2 (which is named as global_ssi). For interested users who have accounts at NCEP, the source is

     /hpssprod/runhistory/rh2004/200405/20040530/nwprod.tar

    TEST PERIOD

    From January 1 to the February 29 of 2004, the first ~15 days are also archived, thought they might be excluded from the evaluation.

    EXPERIMENT PLATFORM

     The benchmark experiment is finished on NCEP IBM BLUE machines.

    OBSERVATIONS TO BE USED

    The post quality control (post-qc) files are used for the experiment. A note here is that the data has been processed by comparing with the high-resolution gdas guess files. The input data files used are archived onto HPSS as well which is named

    /hpssuser/g01/wx20ys/Benchmark/dump.tar. The file also contains SST, ICE and SNOW data files used for the experiment.

     ARCHIVED FILES

    Every 6 hours, for the 00Z and 12Z cycle, pgb (pressure level grib) files are archived on the NCEP HPSS system. Bias correction, satellite angle, surface analysis as well as sigma analysis files are also archived. There are 31 levels in the pgb file, they are: 1000 975 950 925 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 70 50 30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1mb

HOW TO GET THE FILES

     Data are archived on HPSS by day, for example, to get the data file for Feb 24, in your desired directory, you can issue command like

     hpsstar get /hpssuser/g01/wx20ys/Benchmark/20040224.tar

     The command hpsstar is Mark Iredell’s version of tar which is convenient to use. Users can also use htar to get the files.

    QUESTIONS or COMMENTS

    If after going through this entire document, you still have questions, please let me know. I can be reached at yucheng.song@noaa.gov.

    SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE DISCUSSION

    April 7, 2004, 2-3 pm EST

    Present: J. Whitaker, T. Hamill (CDC), J. Anderson, J. Tribbia (NCAR), C. Bishop (NRL, joined later), M. Zupanski (CIRA/CSU), I. Szunyogh, E. Kostelich (UM), M. Wei, R. Wobus, Y. Zhu, and Z. Toth (NCEP/EMC)

General issues:

    1) Funding

    ZT mentioned that two participating groups will likely receive more funding than initially thought, restoring funding level to that originally requested by one group.

    2) Use of real observations or simulated observations in a perfect model

    framework?

    ZT emphasized the main focus should be on inter-comparison of different methods using real data. Several participants pointed out science advantages of carrying out perfect model data assimilation experiments as well. It was agreed that if resources permit, the project would include perfect model DA experiments as well. Rest of the discussion focused on real obs experiments, since this is the primary interest from NCEP’s point of view, and this is the setup that should drive basic experimental design etc. It was noted that the addition of perfect model DA experiments would not double resources needed for the project. JA noted that NCAR could generate data based on a model integration. ZT pointed to the NCEP OSSE software that should preferably be exercised for generating simulated data (with realistic observational error). Participants (including EMC) are asked to assess whether the addition of perfect model experiments is within their reach. In case it is, details of the perfect model setup will be discussed after plans are fleshed out, and work begins with real observations.

3) Software infrastructure to be used.

    ZT recalled that whenever possible, software available from NCEP (NWP model, observation operators, file format, verification routines, etc) should be used. In case new software needs to be developed in the inter-comparison project, it should be compatible with existing NCEP software and practices. These practices will insure that as the project progresses, participants can easily exchange parts of their software, can start working jointly on a prototype software, that can later be tested in an operational environment.

Experimental design:

    1) Test period

    After short discussion, participants agreed to use Jan-Feb 2004 as a test period. The first ~15 days will be excluded from the evaluation.

    2) Observations to be used

    Data types. After some discussion, participants agreed that in the main experiment, the following data types will be used:

    Surface observations, radiosondes, ACAR winds, cloud drift winds. Participants can ignore some of the observation types as they wish.

    Data files. The NCEP prebufr files from the final gdas analysis cycle will be used. EMC is going to make the gdas1 prepbufr files (including restricted access data, please confirm you have privileges to use that, and whether you can all use blocked data format) available on the IBM machine in a few days. There was some discussion about using CDAS data files. These files use a much longer data cut-off time that does not allow for their use in real time weather forecasting. Also, they may not contain some new data types that in further analysis we may want to consider.

    In addition to the basic experiment, participating groups can also run a second experiment where they include additional data types.

    Observational period. Following the usual practice (also reflected in +/-3 hrs time window for data included in prepbufr files) analyses performed at the nominal 0000 UTC time, for example, will use data up to 3 hrs after the nominal analysis time (0300 UTC). It was noted that unlike 3DVAR where through time interpolation, “future” data are used (currently up to 3 hrs into the future), ensemble-based schemes are filters that may use data only up to the time of the analysis. Therefore, if participants desire, they can choose to perform an analysis step at 0300 UTC (using data up to that valid time), for a comparison with SSI forecasts initialized at 0000 UTC (that also use data up to 0300 UTC).

Issues not discussed/settled yet:

Observational error statistics. This has not been discussed. Suggestion use

    observational error statistics as used in operational 3DVAR, given in prepbufr files.

Quality control. This issue has not been discussed yet. Suggestion use

    operational QC marks as given in prepbufr files. Agree about cut-off value regarding QC mark below/above which data will/will not be used.

    3) Data assimilation

    Cycling frequency: Each group decide on their own. Suggestion - required

    minimum analysis frequency every 6 hrs (available at 00, 06, 12, and 1800 UTC).

Next meeting, tentative: Monday, 11 April, 10 am Pacific, 11 am Mountain, 1

    pm Eastern time

    Continue with discussion of remaining experimental design issues in strawperson plan.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com