RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006

08 November, 2006 OMSZ, Budapest

RC LACE Evaluation


Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski

OMSZ, Budapest, 08 November 2006

Presentation of the

RC LACE Evaluation Report


1. Introduction2. Brief History of RC LACE3. The Current Situation4. [ Break ]5. Future Options6. Task Sharing7. Recommendations.

Outline of Presentation


Background

• NWP essential for operational weather forecasting.• Maintenance and development of NWP systems

beyond the capacity of most small NMSs. • Therefore: Strong incentive to cooperate.• The LACE Council decided on an

evaluation of the RC LACE Project.• Purpose: to assist in planning for the coming

decade. • Terms of Reference were drawn up.


• Consultations at RC LACE Centres:1. Directorate2. Local NWP teams3. Technical and forecasting staff4. Internal NWP users.

• Participated in meetings of:1. LACE Council2. LACE Steering Committee3. Management Group 4. Vision Meeting at ECMWF.

• Extensive analysis of relevant documentation.

• Discussion of intermediate Evaluation Report.

Activities of the Evaluators (pg 36)


Short History of LACE (pp 5-7)

• Political changes in Europe in 1980s.

• Opportunities for co-operation in the Central European area.

• Meeting in Vienna (1990) to consider a Regional Centre for limited-area modelling.

• This was the embryo of RC LACE

• LACE Project established within a year.


• The French Government provided financial support to foster closer links.

• Météo-France offered a limited-area version of the ARPEGE model for operational use.

• This proposal included strong training and research components.

• The LAM-ARPEGE Project started in Toulouse in September 1991.

• Shortly it became ALADIN.

The French Connection


• ALADIN provided an ideal basis for LACE.

• Several LACE scientists work in Toulouse.

• Nov. 1994: Co-operation framework agreement between RC LACE and Météo-France.

• Spring 1996: RC LACE Management Group established. Leader: Miroslav Ondráš .

• Plan A: Operational Regional Centre in Vienna.

• Later political changes in Austria prevented the establishment of the Regional Centre there.


The Prague Phase

• 1997: CHMI acquire NEC computer.ALADIN ported to this system.

• March, 1998: First RC LACE MoU. Establishment of Regional Centre in Prague.

• June, 1998: ALADIN/LACE operations transferred to Prague.

• Scientists from all the participating institutes working at CHMI in Prague.


• Boundary conditions dispatched from Toulouse on a regular basis.

• Prague Centre was back-up centre for the reference ALADIN system software.

• ALADIN system was also run in operational mode in the other centres:

Slovenia (1997), Hungary (1998),Austria (1999), Slovakia (1999),Croatia (2000).

• Each centre used combination of NWP guidance from the Prague Centre and local ALADIN.


Centralized organization had many attractions …

• Concentrated research effort very effective.• Common operational system maintained and

developed with considerable efficiency.

… but also significant tensions …

• Increasingly difficult to fulfill NWP requirements of all the participating institutes.

• Scientists reluctant to spend long periods away from their home institutes.

• Transfer of substantial financial resources away from the national institutes.


• Second RC LACE MoU signed in Oct. 2002.

• Decentralized phase began in January, 2003.

• RC LACE now Regional Co-operation LACE.

• MoU has been extended until the end of 2007.

• Each RC LACE Member responsible for its own operational NWP system.

• Scientific R&D coordinated within the project.

The Current LACE Project (pp 7-8)


• Policy of Project determined by LACE Council (Directors of Member Institutes).

• LACE Steering Committee (LSC) is advisory body for Project.

• The Project Leader is Dijana Klarić (Croatia).• The Management Group (MG):

1. Project Leader (PL)2. ALADIN-LACE System Coordinator (ASC)3. Data Manager (DM) 4. Working Group Leaders (WGLs).

Structure of the Project


• Dynamics and Coupling • Physical Parameterization• Data Assimilation. • EPS and Predictability

Management Group appointments are reviewed annually.

Working Groups


• RC LACE first group to officially join the ALADIN-2 Project (Jan, 2004).

• Intensive discussions on roadmap for ALADIN-2 and AROME.

• The AROME Project was started in 2000 at Météo-France.

• Goal: high resolution model for nowcasting and very short range forecasting.

The ALADIN Project


• Combines parts of ALADIN and Meso-NH.

• Designed for resolution of c. 2 km.

• Interest within RC LACE for operational application of AROME.

• A framework for the transition: ALARO, similar to ALADIN with refined physics.

• LACE scientists are already active in Aladin/Hirlam collaboration (HARMONIE).

AROME


The European Context (pp 8-9)

Europe a world leader in operational meteorology.

• RC LACE Members (5) in EU.• RC LACE Members (5) “in” ECMWF.• Possible EU move on centralization

of operational meteorology … (?)• Closer collaboration among NMSs

is essential.• EUMETNET a framework for collaboration.• EUMET: All LACE members involved.• WMO – Region VI.• SRNWP: to be re-tasked / empowered.


ECMWF

• World-leading forecast centre.

• Feb, 2006: Spatial resolution 25 km.

• Grid resolution of 10 km by 2015.

• RC LACE must aim for about 2 kmon that time-scale.


RC LACE Strengths (pp 9-12)

• Proven modelling expertise (Annex III)• RC LACE and ALADIN.• Relationship with Météo-France.• Local operational ALADIN systems.• Local NWP knowledge.• Local applications.• Budgetary control.• Flexibility and Adaptability.


RC LACE Weaknesses (pp 12-15)

• Manpower in NWP.• Duplication of effort.• Lack of identity, visibility.• Internal communication.• Complexity of the scientific planning

process.• Need to cover all NWP.• Coordination of plans.• Management structure.• Quality of operational NWP systems.


Break


External Factors affecting LACE (pp 15-18)

• Activities of major NWP centres.• User demands in LACE countries.• Role of private service providers.• NWP in universities.• Government regulations.• Developments in IT and communications.


Other operational NWP systems in Europe that compete with LACE

• North-Atlantic Europe model (NAE) of UKMO (grid spacing 12 km; 8 km in 2009).

• Local model Europe (LME) of DWD(grid spacing 7 km).

• Local model LMK (LM-Kürzestfrist) of DWD (grid spacing 2.8 km).

• University of Basel: NOAA-NCEP (NMM) model (grid spacing 13 and 2 km).


Domains of the NAE (12 km/ 8 km) and UK regional forecast systems


Global model GME

grid spacing: 40 km

number of layers: 40

forecast range:

174 h from 00 and 12 UTC


grid cell area: 1384 km2

Local model LME

grid spacing : 7 km

number of layers: 40

forecast range:



grid cell area: 49 km2

Domain of the LME (7 km) of the Deutscher Wetterdienst


• grid length: Δx = 2.8 km • direct simulation of coarser parts of deep convection

• interactions with fine scale topography

• use of radar data for initialization

• improved numerical schemes

• 50 layers in the vertical, lowest layer in 10 m above ground

• center of the domain 10° E, 50° N

• 421 x 461 grid points

• boundary values from LME (x = 7 km)

• pre-operational phase starting July 2006

LMK-Configuration Model domain of LMK

Domain of the LMK (2.8 km) of the Deutscher Wetterdienst


LMK forecasts without (centre) and with (right) usage of

radar data during the assimilation; radar observation (left)


LMK-forecasts – ETS for hourly precipitation (thresholds 0.2 mm/h and 2.0 mm/h) Averaged over 80 forecasts (23 days: 0, [6,] 12, 18 UTC)

06 18

0.2 mm/h

2.0 mm/h

06 18


University of Basel: Meteobluehttp://pages.unibas.ch/geo/mcr/3d/meteo/

NMM with grid spacing 2 kmNMM with grid spacing 13 km


How LACE can respond to the NWP competition in Europe

• Provide better NWP quality, e.g. data assimilation.

• Provide higher reliability, e.g. hardware.• Provide better price/performance ratio.• Provide better customer service, e.g.

documentation in local language.• Provide more flexibility, e.g. product generation.• Provide tailored products for customers, e.g.

hydrology.


Strategic NWP goals (pp 18-22)

• Convective scale NWP (AROME).• Intermediate-scale (~5km) model (ALARO).• Local data assimilation.• Lateral boundary conditions.• Regional ensemble prediction system.• Increased automation of forecast process.• Scientific scope of programme.• Interaction with other NWP consortia.


Task-sharing in RC LACE (pp 23-24)

• Balanced, voluntary contributions.

• Agreement on Lead Centres for specific areas.

• Efficient use of the scarce manpower available.

• Specialisation of the NWP teams.

• Ability of smaller NWP groups to provide their centres with a complete NWP system.


1. Common Observation Data Base (ODB) 2. Monitoring of observations, based on ODB 3. Flexible verification tool based on ODB 4. Data assimilation for intermediate NWP model 5. Detailed analysis of surface/soil parameters 6. Development and integration of intermediate NWP model 7. Preparation of a radar data composite 8. Nowcasting system based on ALARO/AROME and INCA 9. Ensemble Prediction System (EPS)10. Standardized key post processing tools.

Some Options for Task-sharing (pp24-28)


1. Common Observation Data Base (pg 24)

• The Observation Data Base (ODB) is a database software system developed at ECMWF.

• We propose a common centralised operational ODB for all LACE centres.

• It should be maintained at two different centres which will work as mutual backup.

• The common ODB, should store all GTS and local data from all LACE centres in the ODB.

• All other LACE centres can retrieve the observations from the ODB.

• Strict protection measures will be necessary.


2. Monitoring of data based on ODB (pg 25)

• Total counts of all observation types.• Observation distribution maps for each

analysis cycle. • Rejected observation distribution maps for

each cycle. • Vertical profiles of observation fit to first guess,

and analysis for each analysis cycle. • Monthly maps of radiosonde - first guess biases. • Vertical profiles of monthly mean and std of

radiosonde biases, for bias-corrected areas. • Monthly maps of mean and root-mean-square

errors of drifting buoys.


3. Flexible verification based on ODB (pp26-27)

• Verification tool for LACE models, other regional models and the ECMWF model.

• Scheme designed and coded in Slovenia may serve as nucleus of the new system.

• Comparison of the quality of the models highlights strengths and weaknesses of the NWP systems.

• The centre responsible for verification should produce a quarterly verification report.


4. Centralized Data Assimilation (pg 27)

• The LACE centres will need a common regional model (grid ~5 km ALARO).

• This will provide the lateral boundary conditions of their meso-gamma scale AROME model.

• The data assimilation for this model should be performed in one LACE centre.

• The analysis should then be distributed to all LACE centres.

• The analysis of the intermediate NWP model should have higher quality.


5. Analysis of surface/soil parameters (pg 27)

• For Central Europe, high-resolution analysis of surface and soil parameters is important.

• Reliance on interpolated ARPEGE analysis for the surface and soil fields is not adequate.

• LACE should develop its own capability for high-resolution surface analysis.

• The expertise of the HIRLAM consortium should be exploited.


6. Development and integration of the intermediate model (pg 27)

• Centralised integration of the intermediate NWP model (grid spacing ~5 km) is possible.

• This will provide coupling files for LACE centres running convection-scale AROME model.

• This intermediate model must include data assimilation, including surface variables.

• The intermediate model may be driven by lateral boundary data from ARPEGE or ECMWF.


7. Preparation of radar data composite (p27-28)

• The convection-scale model AROME will assimilate radar data.

• The operational production of composite radar data of all the LACE countries is important.

• A number of scientific and technical problems must be solved.

• Expertise of other NWP consortia (HIRLAM, COSMO, UKMO) using radar should be used.


8. Nowcasting with INCA System (pg 28)

• INCA should be interfaced to the common ODB using local LACE data and ALARO forecasts.

• A centralized INCA run with domain covering all LACE countries should be considered.

• A local version of INCA, based on AROME forecasts, may also be developed.


9. Ensemble Prediction System (pg 29)

• The combined computer power available at the LACE centres should be used to run an EPS.

• Distributed computation of the EPS members and centralized evaluation/product generation.

• There are several scientific problems to be solved.

• Expertise of other NWP consortia running regional EPS should be used;

EUMETNET SRNWP optional project?


10. Post-processing tools (pp 28-29)

• LACE scientists must work on a variety of downstream developments.

• To avoid duplication, standardised and portable post-processing tools should be developed.

• Since tools like Kalman Filter or MOS require observational data, the common ODB data base should be used.


1. Common ODB / Data Assimilation (Res. + Ops.)

2. Nowcasting system / EPS (Res. + Ops.)

3. Dynamics & Intermediate NWP model (Res. + Ops.)

4. Post processing / Surface Analysis (Res.)

5. Radar data composite (Res.)

6. Verification (Res.)

Sketch of a possible configuration of “Lead Centres” (pg 30)


Recommendations (pp 29-34)

1. Priority tasks for near future

• Common verification• Data assimilation• Evaluate ECMWF forecasts as LBC data• Post-processing• Focus on ALADIN, ALARO, AROME.


2. Strategy and Planning (pg 31)

• Council should adopt a general 10-year strategy of RC LACE, updated every five years.

• LSC should formulate a detailed 2-year plan, updated annually.

• Survey of user requirements.

• LSC should co-ordinate and harmonize user requirements.


3. Management Structure (pp 31-32)

• CouncilTwice-yearly Council meetings.Reduce amount of papers for the meeting.Material dispatched in timely fashion.Short summary documents.Appointment of new management staff.

• LACE Steering Committee (LSC)Receive papers two weeks before meeting.Reduce time spend on technical issues.Increase time for strategic issues.Highlight training needs and co-ordinate training.


• Project Leader (pg 32)Position should be full-time (or at least 80%). Improve international visibility of RC LACE. Pro-active in putting RC LACE objectives on

international agenda. Act as RC LACE representative at key

meetings and conferences.

• Management Group (pp 32-33)Core Group (80%) for long-term research tasks.The WG Leaders need formal control of scientists.Improve flow of information between WGs.ASC and DM should be a half-time positions. Terms of Reference for ASC and DM separated.Longer time-scale for management appointments.


4. Internal & External Communications (pp 33-34)

A recurring theme: lack of recognition of RC LACE outside the ALADIN Community.

• WWW as repository for documentation.• Visual Image of RC LACE. • Communications with other NWP Consortia.

Management Group should explicitly consider possibilities for collaboration with other groups when defining scientific plans for RC LACE.


Thank you

RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006

Documents

Transcript of RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006