MPLS Consortium Charter Meeting Welcome to UNH Durham, New Hampshire February 7, 2000.
Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010
description
Transcript of Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010
![Page 1: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Consortium MeetingFebruary 4, 2010
![Page 2: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Who is using our model output?
![Page 3: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Hits
Canadians
Utah
![Page 4: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
File Transfers
Utah!!!
![Page 5: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
New Hardware• We have acquired 8 nodes of the new Intel Newhalem
processors (last week)..64 processors. They have the memory bandwidth that will allow much more effective use of resources
• These will be used to make high-resolution local data assimilation a reality for us (4-km), making use of as much of our local observations as possible.
• Exhausting enclosure for the last cluster. Hot air all heading outside.
• Replaced an old (failing) RAID disk storage array.• System has been very, very stable
![Page 6: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Major Changes and Improvements
• Beginning with the 2009123100 run, the WRF-GFS has switched to the latest version (3.1.1.)– Bug fixes in several of parameterizations we use.– Thompson microphysical scheme is now double
moment in rain as well as ice (number concentration as well as mixing ratio calculated). This may help with a major issue…our light rain starts too late.
– Lot more pbl options– Gravity wave drag parameterization.– More stable.
![Page 7: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
But is it better?
![Page 8: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
High Resolution 1.33 km Nest• Western WA only• Once a day (0000 UTC cycle) to 36 h• Uses the gap period after we finish all the real-time
work on SAGE.• Attempt to answer questions:
– What is the payoff in getting the land-water boundaries and smaller scale terrain much better (4-km hardly has Puget Sound!)
– Does ultra high resolution improve objective verification or subjective structures?
– Can it provide a better feed to the NWS for use in their GFE system (which is going to 2.5 km spacing)?
![Page 15: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1.3
4 km
![Page 17: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
6-hr forecast, 10m wind speed and direction
1.3 km
4 km
![Page 18: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Precip Verification
![Page 19: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Wind Direction
![Page 20: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Future Evaluation
• Improving PBL and surface drag may preferentially help 1.3 km (more later)
• Using 1.3 km as a testbed (some problems are more acute at higher resolution)
![Page 22: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A Major Issue Has Been Excessive Wind Speeds Over Land and Excessive Geostrophy at the Surface –either
too much mixing in vertical or not enough drag. Winds over land and water too similar
• No magic bullet in PBL tests.• Recently, we tried something that really looks
like it has potential to help…increasing the friction velocity….ustar.
• Essentially adds drag, without messing other things up.
• Perhaps it is realistic, mimicking the effects of hills.
![Page 23: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
During the past few months we have continued our testing
program of various PBL schemes, vertical diffusion options, etc.
• A test case has been one in which the 4 and 1.3 km created unrealistic roll circulations.
![Page 30: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/wrf_1.33km_striations/
![Page 31: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
1 km visible
![Page 32: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Problem
• Instead of getting open cellular convection, there are these period cloud streets.
• Look like roll circulation, but of too large a scale (if you look at sat pics you can see hints of them).
• Sometimes apparent (but less so) in 4-km.• Occurs only in unstable, post-frontal
conditions.
![Page 34: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Through the kitchen sink at it and consulted heavily with Dave
Stauffer at Penn State• Tried a range of PBL schemes (YSU, QNSE, ACM2, MYNN,
MYJ, MYJ with Stauffer mods)• Added 6th order diffusion and played with diffusion
coefficent.• Fully, interactive nesting• Upper level diffusion and gravity wave drag• Monotonic advection• Varying vertical diffusion, both more and less
![Page 35: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Results
• ACM2 (Pleim PBL and LSM) was the only thing that helped reduce the rolls.
• It created this stratiform cloud mass that wasn’t very realistic.
• We asked NCAR to help—nothing yet.• Did any of these tests suggest fixes for some
of our recurring problems?
![Page 36: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Example: Cut vertical diffusion 10 1/8th of normal value
![Page 37: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Vertical Diffusion cut to 1/4
![Page 38: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Standard Low Diffusion
![Page 39: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Ensemble Kalman Filter• During the fall, we have tested the EnKF data
assimilation system at 4 km resolution with a three hour update cycle.
• Results are promising, but it became clear we lacked the computational power to do this consistently and dependably (loss of a single node and we ran behind).
• We also lacked the resources to go to a one-hour cycle, which people want.
![Page 40: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Some Initial Results
• Bottom Line: We can create a better analysis• But it doesn’t hold long…we relax back to the
current 4-km skill within a few hours.• We may be able to do better than this…more
later…but there is a real limitation without having much upstream mesoscale data.
• The coastal radar might alter this situation.
![Page 41: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Plans During the Month• With new hardware, go to a dependable 3-hr
assimilation cycle at 4-km.• Switch to the NCAR DART system, not our
homegrown EnKF infrastructure.• DART has many options that we don’t have that
may improve the assimilation (vertical localization, satellite radiance and radar assets assimilated)
• Experiment with 1hr updates
![Page 44: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Consortium Meeting February 4, 2010](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022013011/56813e2a550346895da80945/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
EnKF
• The target is to have by June a dependable operational system.
• High-quality 3D analyses at 4-km will be available and archived.
• Short-term forecasts available for other uses.