Setting up COSMO EPS perturbing lower boundary conditions Riccardo Bonanno, Nicola Loglisci COSMO General Meeting - Eretria – 8-11 September 2014 COTEKINO.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Slide 1ECMWF forecast User Meeting -- Reading, June 2006 Verification of weather parameters Anna Ghelli, ECMWF.
Advertisements

Slide 1ECMWF forecast products users meeting – Reading, June 2005 Verification of weather parameters Anna Ghelli, ECMWF.
What’s quasi-equilibrium all about?
COSMO-SREPS COSMO Priority Project C. Marsigli, A. Montani and T. Paccagnella ARPA-SIM, Bologna, Italy.
Verification of NCEP SFM seasonal climate prediction during Jae-Kyung E. Schemm Climate Prediction Center NCEP/NWS/NOAA.
An Intercomparison of Surface Observations and High-Resolution Forecasting Model Output for the Lake Okeechobee Region By Kathryn Shontz July 19, 2006.
Effects of model error on ensemble forecast using the EnKF Hiroshi Koyama 1 and Masahiro Watanabe 2 1 : Center for Climate System Research, University.
Vienna 15 th April 2015 Luca Brocca(1), Clement Albergel(2), Christian Massari(1), Luca Ciabatta(1), Tommaso Moramarco (1), Patricia de Rosnay(2) (1) Research.
WG7 summary and Science Plan Chiara Marsigli ARPA Emilia-Romagna, SIMC.
Sensitivity of High-Resolution Simulations of Hurricane Bob (1991) to Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterizations SCOTT A. BRAUN AND WEI-KUO TAO PRESENTATION.
Toward State-Dependent Moisture Availability Perturbations in a Multi-Analysis Ensemble System with Physics Diversity Eric Grimit.
Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS 1 Evaluation of WRF Using High-Resolution Soil Initial Conditions from the NASA Land.
Ensemble Post-Processing and it’s Potential Benefits for the Operational Forecaster Michael Erickson and Brian A. Colle School of Marine and Atmospheric.
Institute of Meteorology and Water Management – NRI Extensive tests of lower-boundary-variation-based COSMO EPS COTEKINO Priority Project -
COSMO General Meeting Zurich, 2005 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw, Poland- 1 - Verification of the LM at IMGW Katarzyna Starosta,
Francesca Marcucci, Lucio Torrisi with the contribution of Valeria Montesarchio, ISMAR-CNR CNMCA, National Meteorological Center,Italy First experiments.
On the impact of the SSO scheme in the COSMO model into the development of a deep cyclone in the Tirrenian sea Case study: April Antonella Morgillo.
Ensemble-variational sea ice data assimilation Anna Shlyaeva, Mark Buehner, Alain Caya, Data Assimilation and Satellite Meteorology Research Jean-Francois.
Chris Birchfield Atmospheric Sciences, Spanish minor.
ESA DA Projects Progress Meeting 2University of Reading Advanced Data Assimilation Methods WP2.1 Perform (ensemble) experiments to quantify model errors.
Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI Bundesamt für Meteorologie und Klimatologie MeteoSchweiz Statistical Characteristics of High- Resolution COSMO.
WWOSC 2014, Aug 16 – 21, Montreal 1 Impact of initial ensemble perturbations provided by convective-scale ensemble data assimilation in the COSMO-DE model.
ISDA 2014, Feb 24 – 28, Munich 1 Impact of ensemble perturbations provided by convective-scale ensemble data assimilation in the COSMO-DE model Florian.
Uncertainty in climate scenarios when downscaling with an RCM M. Tadross, B. Hewitson, W Gutowski & AF07 collaborators Water Research Commission of South.
The revised Diagnostics of 2m Values - Motivation, Method and Impact - M. Raschendorfer, FE14 Matthias Raschendorfer DWD COSMO Cracow 2008.
COSMO-SREPS Priority Project C. Marsigli ARPA-SIM - HydroMeteorological Service of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy.
Tropical Domain Results Downscaling Ability of the NCEP Regional Spectral Model v.97: The Big Brother Experiment Conclusions: Motivation: The Big Brother.
MJO simulations under a dry environment Marcela Ulate M Advisor: Chidong Zhang (… in a Nudging World)
How much do different land models matter for climate simulation? Jiangfeng Wei with support from Paul Dirmeyer, Zhichang Guo, Li Zhang, Vasu Misra, and.
Modeling the upper ocean response to Hurricane Igor Zhimin Ma 1, Guoqi Han 2, Brad deYoung 1 1 Memorial University 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Latest results in verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta, Joanna Linkowska Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw 9th COSMO General.
The latest results of verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta Joanna Linkowska COSMO General Meeting, Cracow September 2008 Institute of Meteorology.
INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT TITLE : IMPLEMENTATION OF MOSAIC APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM AUTHORS:
11 Background Error Daryl T. Kleist* National Monsoon Mission Scoping Workshop IITM, Pune, India April 2011.
Sensitivity experiments with the Runge Kutta time integration scheme Lucio TORRISI CNMCA – Pratica di Mare (Rome)
Data assimilation, short-term forecast, and forecasting error
Assimilation of HF radar in the Ligurian Sea Spatial and Temporal scale considerations L. Vandenbulcke, A. Barth, J.-M. Beckers GHER/AGO, Université de.
An ensemble study of HyMeX IOP6 and IOP7a Alan Hally (1,2), Evelyne Richard (1), Véronique Ducrocq (2) (1)LA, University of Toulouse, France (2)CNRM, Météo-France,
HNMS contribution to CONSENS Petroula Louka & Flora Gofa Hellenic National Meteorological Service
Ensemble data assimilation in an operational context: the experience at the Italian Weather Service Massimo Bonavita and Lucio Torrisi CNMCA-UGM, Rome.
Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI Bundesamt für Meteorologie und Klimatologie MeteoSchweiz First Experience with KENDA at MeteoSwiss Daniel Leuenberger,
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss WG 4 activities.
Verification Verification with SYNOP, TEMP, and GPS data P. Kaufmann, M. Arpagaus, MeteoSwiss P. Emiliani., E. Veccia., A. Galliani., UGM U. Pflüger, DWD.
Applications of a Regional Climate Model to Study Climate Change over Southern China Keith K. C. Chow Hang-Wai Tong Johnny C. L. Chan CityU-IAP Laboratory.
SREPS Priority Project COSMO General Meeting Cracov 2008 SREPS Priority Project: final report C. Marsigli, A. Montani, T. Paccagnella ARPA-SIM - HydroMeteorological.
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center & *Environmental Modeling Center Camp Springs, MD Impact of High-Frequency Variability of Soil Moisture on Seasonal.
Impact of the backscatter kinetic energy on the perturbation of ensemble members for strong convective event Jakub Guzikowski
SREPS Priority Project: final report C. Marsigli, A. Montani, T. Paccagnella ARPA-SIMC - HydroMeteorological Service of Emilia- Romagna, Bologna, Italy.
General Meeting Moscow, 6-10 September 2010 High-Resolution verification for Temperature ( in northern Italy) Maria Stefania Tesini COSMO General Meeting.
Vincent N. Sakwa RSMC, Nairobi
PP CONSENS Merging COSMO-LEPS and COSMO- SREPS for the short-range Chiara Marsigli, Tiziana Paccagnella, Andrea Montani ARPA-SIMC, Bologna, Italy.
Comparison of LM Verification against Multi Level Aircraft Measurements (MLAs) with LM Verification against Temps Ulrich Pflüger, Deutscher Wetterdienst.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Experiments at MeteoSwiss : TERRA / aerosols Flake Jean-Marie.
OSEs with HIRLAM and HARMONIE for EUCOS Nils Gustafsson, SMHI Sigurdur Thorsteinsson, IMO John de Vries, KNMI Roger Randriamampianina, met.no.
HIRLAM coupled to the ocean wave model WAM. Verification and improvements in forecast skill. Morten Ødegaard Køltzow, Øyvind Sætra and Ana Carrasco. The.
Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI Bundesamt für Meteorologie und Klimatologie MeteoSchweiz Ensemble activites and plans at MeteoSwiss André Walser.
UERRA User Workshop Toulouse, 4 th Feb 2016 Questions to the users.
Introducing the Lokal-Modell LME at the German Weather Service
Current verification results for COSMO-EU and COSMO-DE at DWD
Status of the COSMO-Software and Documentation
Coupled atmosphere-ocean simulation on hurricane forecast
Tuning the horizontal diffusion in the COSMO model
The Experimental Climate Prediction Center Regional Spectral Model (ECPC-RSM) Contribution to the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program.
Mark A. Bourassa and Qi Shi
Daniel Leuenberger1, Christian Keil2 and George Craig2
On HRM3 (a.k.a. HadRM3P, a.k.a. PRECIS) North American simulations
Upper air Meteorological charts
Preliminary test for the development of a 2.8km ensemble over Italy
The Impact of Moist Singular Vectors and Horizontal Resolution on Short-Range Limited-Area Ensemble Forecasts for Extreme Weather Events A. Walser1) M.
Activities of WG7 Chiara Marsigli.
Presentation transcript:

Setting up COSMO EPS perturbing lower boundary conditions Riccardo Bonanno, Nicola Loglisci COSMO General Meeting - Eretria – 8-11 September 2014 COTEKINO PP

Introduction In a previous study we performed a sensitivity test to assess the impact of different soil moisture initializations on short range ensemble variability in COSMO model using different soil moisture analysis from global, regional and land surface models. Model COSMO EU analysis ECMWF analysis GFS analysis GLDAS – NOAH LSM reanalysis UTOPIA LSM reanalysis Resolution (°) R. Bonanno, N. Loglisci, 2014: A sensitivity test to assess the impact of different soil moisture initializations on short range ensemble variability in COSMO model. COSMO Newsletter no. 14, , Available at Spread stronger in the spring/summer case studies with convective conditions, weaker in autumn season and nearly absent in stable winter conditions. Not only the surface, but also the upper levels in the troposphere are affected by soil moisture variability.

Stochastic Pattern Generator The Generator is based on solution of a partial stochastic differential equation in spectral space on a 3-dimensional torus. Variance, spatial and temporal scales are tunable. p and q are external parameter,  and  are parameters related to the desired variance, spatial and temporal correlation scale.  is the spatio-temporal white noise. M Tsyrulnikov, I Mamay, D.Gayfulin - HydroMetCenter of Russia KENDA Priority Project Streatching Function Gaussian random noise (Lavaysse et al, 2013, Charron et al, 2010)

L(0.5)= 25 kmL(0.5)= 125 km L(0.5) is defined as the distance at which the correlation function falls to 0.5. The value of L(0.5) has to be set in the configuration file to determine  Spatial correlation scale

Stochastic Pattern Generator L(0.5)=125 km IFS soil moisture INT2LM Perturbation F1Perturbation F2 Perturbation F9Perturbation F10 …… Check with soil porosity 0 ≤ W_SO ≤  s W_SO 1W_SO 2 W_SO 9W_SO 10 Stretching Function F max surf = 0.06 m 3 m -3 Bounds [-0.06, 0.06] &

Sensitivity to the characteristics of the perturbation Intensity and Spatial correlation scale 0.06 m 3 m -3 for the surface layer and 0.04 m 3 m -3 for root layers (Lavaysse et al., 2013, Mc Laughlin et al., 2006). The higher values of the surface perturbation is motivated by the higher spatial and temporal variability of soil moisture in the superficial layer. These values are comparable of smaller than errors of the operational soil moisture analysis at ECMWF (bias = −0.081 m 3 m −3, RMSE = m 3 m −3 over the period , Albergel et al. (2012) or ECMWF Newsletter No. 133, Autumn 2012) TestF max surf (m 3 m -3 )F max root (m 3 m -3 )L(0.5) (km)

Case studies UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2)

Sensitivity to the characteristics of the perturbation 1° case study: 29/06/2011 2m TEMPERATURE [°C]SOIL MOISTURE [kg/m 2 ]

DEW POINT TEMPERATURE [°C] SOIL TEMPERATURE [°C]3h PRECIPITATION [mm] VERTICAL VELOCITY [m/s]

Comparison with the spread of an ensemble system with IC e BC perturbations: COSMO LEPS Variables considered: 2m Temperature T 2m, Dew Point Temperture T d,, Precipitation P, Wind Speed Case study: UTC – Strong synoptic forcing (cold front) UTC – Strong winds (Foehn + Mistral) and low pressure system over Tyrrhenian sea Settings: L(0.5) = 125 km, F max surf = 0.08, F max root = 0.06 m 3 m -3

COSMO LEPS – run UTCW_SO pert. – F max surf = 0.08 m 3 m -3, L(0.5) = 125 km 2m Temperature – case study UTC

COSMO LEPS – run UTC Dew Point Temperature – case study UTC W_SO pert. – F max surf = 0.08 m 3 m -3, L(0.5) = 125 km

2 m TEMPERATURE [°C]DEW POINT TEMPERATURE [°C] WIND SPEED [m/s]3h PRECIPITATION [mm] SEA MASK

2 m TEMPERATURE [°C]DEW POINT TEMPERATURE [°C] WIND SPEED [m/s]3h PRECIPITATION [mm]

TORINO LIMONE PASSO ROLLE VERONA AREZZO CAMPOBASSO W_SO pert. – F max surf = 0.08 m 3 m -3, L(0.5) = 125 km Comparison with observations (SYNOP) 1° case study – 29/06/2011

2m Temperature ALPSPO VALLEYCENTRAL ITALY

Comparison with observations (SYNOP) 1° case study – 29/06/2011 Dew Point Temperature ALPSPO VALLEYCENTRAL ITALY

Conclusions 1.Low sensitivity with respect to the spatial length scale and higher sensitivity to the intensity of the perturbation. 2.COSMO EU soil moisture initialization lead to higher values of spread (considering the same value of the intensity of the perturbation F max ) for both the case studies. 3.Weak sensitivity of COSMO model to the perturbation of some external parameters like Leaf Area Index, Roughness Length and Plant Cover. 4.Non additive effect when perturbing all the external parameters together (in this case, the contribution to the spread is similar to the contribution obtained by perturbing a single parameter) 5.Complete perturbation (external parameters + soil moisture) doesn’t have in general a positive effect in the spread production. 6.Lower values of spread (but not negligible!) compared to the case of an ensemble system with IC and BC perturbation (COSMO LEPS). Sometimes strong contribution coming from sea surface. 7.Locally, considering the comparison with SYNOP observations, reasonable values of spread can be noticed.

Future developments 1.Assess the sensitivity of the COSMO model to the perturbation of the soil temperature. The perturbation technique will be inspired by the same used for the soil moisture 2.Definition of the ‘final’ perturbation technique that includes the perturbation of the soil moisture and eventually of the soil temperature. 3.Implementations of the algorithm in an ensemble systems for testing (eg COSMO-IT-EPS). 4.Comparison with observations to evaluate quantitatively the skill of the complete ensemble system with IC + BC + LBC perturbation. For this purpose one or more interesting case studies of Hymex Project will be considered.

Thank you for your attention!

Change in the original soil moisture analysis COSMO EU vs. IFS 2m TEMPERATURE [°C] UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2)

External parameters perturbation: Leaf Area Index, Roughness Length and Plant Cover Multiplicative perturbation (Lavaysse et al. 2013) Choice based on the assumption that the errors are proportional to the values of the considered variable. For Plant Cover perturbation is assumed to be lower when the values of plant cover are close to the limits (0 or 1) – Simmetric perturbation centered at 0.5 is used Same spatial length scale for all the variables considered (L(0.5)=125 km) VariablesLayer Type of perturbation Intensity F max Boundaries Leaf Area Index x0.2; 1.8 – 20%[0; [ Roughness Length x0.2; 1.8 – 20%[0; [ Plant Cover x 0.2; 1.8 – 20% (centered at 0.5) [0; 1] Soil moistureSurface+± 0.06 (0.08) m 3 m -3 [0; 1], porosity Root zone+± 0.04 (0.06) m 3 m -3 [0; 1], porosity

External parameters perturbation: Leaf Area Index, Roughness Length and Plant Cover 2m TEMPERATURE [°C] UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2)

Complete Perturbation external parameters: F max = 20%, L(0.5) = 125 km soil moisture: F max surf = 0.08 m 3 m -3, L(0.5) = 125 km 2m TEMPERATURE [°C] UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2)

Alternative stretching function Uniform (Li et al., 2008, McLaughlin et al., 2006) GaussianUniform

GaussianUniform Mean = 0.38 Max = 0.91 Mean = 0.28 Max = 0.72 Alternative stretching function GaussianUniform Mean = 0.16 Max = 0.51 Mean = 0.22 Max = 0.63

External parameters perturbation: Different streatching functions McLaughlin F max = 15% Uniform Lavaysse F max = 20% Gaussian

Impact of surface perturbation on upper levels of atmosphere Variables considered: Temperature T, Specific Humidity Q v, Vertical Velocity W, Wind Speed Case study: UTC – Strong synoptic forcing (cold front) UTC – Strong winds (Foehn + Mistral) and low pressure system over Tyrrhenian sea Settings: L(0.5) = 125 km, F max surf = 0.08, F max root = 0.06 m 3 m -3

Impact of surface perturbation on upper levels of atmosphere ALPSPO VALLEYBALKANS ADRIATIC ALPS APPENNINE TYRRHENIAN SEA

Temperature, Z(hPa) vs. lat, lon =1.0° (  11°E), time mean Temperature, Z(hPa) vs. lon, lat =-12.5° (  45°N), time mean UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2) ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEAALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEA

Specific Humidity, Z(hPa) vs. lat, lon =1.0° (  11°E), time mean Specific Humidity, Z(hPa) vs. lon, lat =-12.5° (  45°N), time mean UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2) ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEAALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEA

Vertical Velocity, Z(hPa) vs. lat, lon =1.0° (  11°E), time mean Vertical Velocity, Z(hPa) vs. lon, lat =-12.5° (  45°N), time mean UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2) ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEAALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEA

Wind Speed, Z(hPa) vs. lat, lon =1.0° (  11°E), time mean Wind Speed, Z(hPa) vs. lon, lat =-12.5° (  45°N), time mean UTC - STRONG SYNOPTIC FORCING (1) UTC - STRONG WINDS (FOEHN + MISTRAL) AND LOW LEVEL PRESSURE OVER TYRRHENIAN SEA (2) ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS PO VALLEYBALKANS ADR. ALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEAALPS P.V. APPEN.TYRRHENIAN SEA