DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, 2009 1 Assimilation of Geostationary Infrared Satellite Data to.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimation of clouds in atmospheric models Tomislava Vukicevic CIRA/CSU and PAOS/CU.
Advertisements

ECMWF/EUMETSAT NWP-SAF Satellite data assimilation Training Course
MODEL ERROR ESTIMATION Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Research Benefits to NOAA:This is a novel research approach, providing an optimal.
Introduction to data assimilation in meteorology Pierre Brousseau, Ludovic Auger ATMO 08,Alghero, september 2008.
© The Aerospace Corporation 2014 Observation Impact on WRF Model Forecast Accuracy over Southwest Asia Michael D. McAtee Environmental Satellite Systems.
Improved Simulations of Clouds and Precipitation Using WRF-GSI Zhengqing Ye and Zhijin Li NASA-JPL/UCLA June, 2011.
Danielle M. Kozlowski NASA USRP Intern. Background Motivation Forecasting convective weather is a challenge for operational forecasters Current numerical.
Satellite SST Radiance Assimilation and SST Data Impacts James Cummings Naval Research Laboratory Monterey, CA Sea Surface Temperature Science.
Atmospheric phase correction for ALMA Alison Stirling John Richer Richard Hills University of Cambridge Mark Holdaway NRAO Tucson.
Performance Characteristics of a Pseudo-operational Ensemble Kalman Filter April 2006, EnKF Wildflower Meeting Greg Hakim & Ryan Torn University of Washington.
NOAA-CoRP Symposium, Aug 15-18, 2006 Radiative Transfer Modeling for Simulating GOES-R imagery Manajit Sengupta 1 Contributions from: Louie Grasso 1, Jack.
Daniel P. Tyndall and John D. Horel Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah.
CIRA & NOAA/NESDIS/RAMM Meteorological Sounders Dr. Bernie Connell CIRA/NOAA-RAMMT March 2005.
Validating the moisture predictions of AMPS at McMurdo using ground- based GPS measurements of precipitable water Julien P. Nicolas 1, David H. Bromwich.
Data assimilation of polar orbiting satellites at ECMWF
Introduction and Methodology Daniel T. Lindsey*, NOAA/NESDIS/STAR/RAMMB Louie Grasso, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere
1 Tropical cyclone (TC) trajectory and storm precipitation forecast improvement using SFOV AIRS soundings Jun Tim Schmit &, Hui Liu #, Jinlong Li.
© Crown copyright Met Office Future Upper-Air Network Development (FUND)-Integration TECO 2008 St Petersburg Russia Catherine Gaffard, John Nash, Alec.
Russ Bullock 11 th Annual CMAS Conference October 17, 2012 Development of Methodology to Downscale Global Climate Fields to 12km Resolution.
3DVAR Retrieval of 3D Moisture Field from Slant- path Water Vapor Observations of a High-resolution Hypothetical GPS Network Haixia Liu and Ming Xue Center.
Data assimilation and observing systems strategies Pierre Gauthier Data Assimilation and Satellite Meteorology Division Meteorological Service of Canada.
Slide 1 Impact of GPS-Based Water Vapor Fields on Mesoscale Model Forecasts (5th Symposium on Integrated Observing Systems, Albuquerque, NM) Jonathan L.
IMPROVING VERY-SHORT-TERM STORM PREDICTIONS BY ASSIMILATING RADAR AND SATELLITE DATA INTO A MESOSCALE NWP MODEL Allen Zhao 1, John Cook 1, Qin Xu 2, and.
Non-hydrostatic Numerical Model Study on Tropical Mesoscale System During SCOUT DARWIN Campaign Wuhu Feng 1 and M.P. Chipperfield 1 IAS, School of Earth.
Jack Dostalek Louie Grasso Manajit Sengupta Mark DeMaria Synthetic GOES-R and NPOESS Imagery of Mesoscale Weather Events Overview This poster contains.
Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) will be flown on the next generation of NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R platform. The sensor.
On the use of Synthetic Satellite Imagery to Evaluate Numerically Simulated Clouds Lewis D. Grasso (1) Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere,
The 2nd International Workshop on GPM Ground Validation TAIPEI, Taiwan, September 2005 GV for ECMWF's Data Assimilation Research Peter
P1.85 DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATED GOES PRODUCTS FOR GFS AND NAM Hui-Ya Chuang and Brad Ferrier Environmental Modeling Center, NCEP, Washington DC Introduction.
Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications: Introduction to NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications:
DATA ASSIMILATION AND MODEL ERROR ESTIMATION Dusanka Zupanski Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Colorado State University Fort Collins,
USE OF AIRS/AMSU DATA FOR WEATHER AND CLIMATE RESEARCH Joel Susskind University of Maryland May 12, 2005.
Hyperspectral Infrared Alone Cloudy Sounding Algorithm Development Objective and Summary To prepare for the synergistic use of data from the high-temporal.
The Application of Observation Adjoint Sensitivity to Satellite Assimilation Problems Nancy L. Baker Naval Research Laboratory Monterey, CA.
Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS AIRS Profile Assimilation - Case Study results Shih-Hung Chou, Brad Zavodsky Gary Jedlovec,
High impact weather studies with advanced IR sounder data Jun Li Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS),
T. Bergot - Météo-France CNRM/GMME 1) Methodology 2) Results for Paris-CdG airport Improved site-specific numerical model of fog and low clouds -dedicated.
Modeling GOES-R µm brightness temperature differences above cold thunderstorm tops Introduction As the time for the launch of GOES-R approaches,
A Statistical Assessment of Mesoscale Model Output using Computed Radiances and GOES Observations Manajit Sengupta 1, Louie Grasso 1, Daniel Lindsey 2.
DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University Annual Review March 8-9, Mixed-phase clouds and icing research. Part.
Satellite based instability indices for very short range forecasting of convection Estelle de Coning South African Weather Service Contributions from Marianne.
The Impact of Data Assimilation on a Mesoscale Model of the New Zealand Region (NZLAM-VAR) P. Andrews, H. Oliver, M. Uddstrom, A. Korpela X. Zheng and.
The Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES) and Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) will be flown on the next generation of NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental.
Layered Water Vapor Quick Guide by NASA / SPoRT and CIRA Why is the Layered Water Vapor Product important? Water vapor is essential for creating clouds,
ITSC-1227 February-5 March 2002 Use of advanced infrared sounders in cloudy conditions Nadia Fourrié and Florence Rabier Météo France Acknowledgement G.
Validation of Satellite-derived Clear-sky Atmospheric Temperature Inversions in the Arctic Yinghui Liu 1, Jeffrey R. Key 2, Axel Schweiger 3, Jennifer.
Assimilation of AIRS SFOV Profiles in the Rapid Refresh Rapid Refresh domain Haidao Lin Ming Hu Steve Weygandt Stan Benjamin Assimilation and Modeling.
Comparison between aircraft and A-Train observations of midlevel, mixed-phase clouds from CLEX-10/C3VP Curtis Seaman, Yoo-Jeong Noh, Thomas Vonder Haar.
Incrementing moisture fields with satellite observations
VISITview Teletraining Nearcasting Convection using GOES Sounder Data 1 ROBERT M. AUNE AND RALPH PETERSEN NOAA/ASPB/STAR JORDAN GERTH AND SCOTT LINDSTROM.
Satellite Data Assimilation Activities at CIMSS for FY2003 Robert M. Aune Advanced Satellite Products Team NOAA/NESDIS/ORA/ARAD Cooperative Institute for.
Météo-France / CNRM – T. Bergot 1) Methodology 2) The assimilation procedures at local scale 3) Results for the winter season Improved Site-Specific.
Matthew Lagor Remote Sensing Stability Indices and Derived Product Imagery from the GOES Sounder
High impact weather nowcasting and short-range forecasting using advanced IR soundings Jun Li Cooperative Institute for Meteorological.
PRELIMINARY VALIDATION OF IAPP MOISTURE RETRIEVALS USING DOE ARM MEASUREMENTS Wayne Feltz, Thomas Achtor, Jun Li and Harold Woolf Cooperative Institute.
DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University January 29, Assimilation of Geostationary Infrared Satellite Data to.
Assimilating Cloudy Infrared Brightness Temperatures in High-Resolution Numerical Models Using Ensemble Data Assimilation Jason A. Otkin and Rebecca Cintineo.
NASA, CGMS-44, 7 June 2016 Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites - CGMS LIMB CORRECTION OF POLAR- ORBITING IMAGERY FOR THE IMPROVED INTERPRETATION.
1 Moisture Profile Retrievals from Satellite Microwave Sounders for Weather Analysis Over Land and Ocean John M. Forsythe, Stanley Q. Kidder*, Andrew S.
Mesoscale Assimilation of Rain-Affected Observations Clark Amerault National Research Council Postdoctoral Associate - Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey,
Workshop on Soundings from High Spectral Resolution Infrared Observations May 6-8, 2003 University of Wisconsin-Madison.
June 20, 2005Workshop on Chemical data assimilation and data needs Data Assimilation Methods Experience from operational meteorological assimilation John.
The GSI Capability to Assimilate TRMM and GPM Hydrometeor Retrievals in HWRF Ting-Chi Wu a, Milija Zupanski a, Louie Grasso a, Paula Brown b, Chris Kummerow.
ECMWF/EUMETSAT NWP-SAF Satellite data assimilation Training Course
Japan Meteorological Agency / Meteorological Research Institute
Radiosonde vs. temperature sounding
FSOI adapted for used with 4D-EnVar
John Marsham and Steven Dobbie
GOES -12 Imager April 4, 2002 GOES-12 Imager - pre-launch info - radiances - products Timothy J. Schmit et al.
Satellite Foundational Course for JPSS (SatFC-J)
Presentation transcript:

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Assimilation of Geostationary Infrared Satellite Data to Improve Forecasting of Mid-level Clouds Curtis J. Seaman

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Acknowledgements Advisor: u Thomas H. “Tom” Vonder Haar Committee: u William R. “Bill” Cotton u Wayne H. Schubert u Mahmood R. “Mo” Azimi (Electrical and Computer Engineering) u Tomislava “Tomi” Vukicevic (University of Colorado-Boulder) u Adam Kankiewicz (WindLogics, Inc.) u Manajit Sengupta, Andy Jones, Steve Fletcher, Scott Longmore, Laura Fowler, Cindy Combs, Louie Grasso, John Forsythe u Karll Renken, Michael Hiatt, Adam Carheden u Department of Defense

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Outline u Introduction u RAMDAS and GOES u Assimilation of GOES Imager (ch. 3 & 4) u Assimilation of GOES Sounder (ch. 7 & 11) u Variation of decorrelation lengths and variance (background error covariance) u Conclusions and Future Work

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Introduction Mid-level, layered clouds are poorly forecast u CLEX and CloudNet results u Vertically thin and most models have poor vertical resolution in mid-troposphere u Complex microphysics u Weak vertical velocity tricky to model u Models have poor moisture information (radiosonde dry bias: Soden et al. 2004) Mid-level, layered clouds (altocumulus and altostratus) are important u Cover 20-25% of the globe u Important for military, civilian aviation t Source of icing and turbulence t Obscure military targets, pilot visibility t Interfere with infrared (IR) and laser communication u Importance for climate? u Cause of blown forecasts Image: Illingworth et al. (2007) Image: Illingworth et al. (2007)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Satellite Data Assimilation u Operational forecast centers typically assimilate only cloud- free radiances t Ease, computational cost t McNally and Vespirini (1995); Garand and Hallé (1997); Ruggiero et al. (1999); McNally et al. (2000); Raymond et al. (2004); Fan and Tilley (2005) u Clouds cover 51-67% of the globe t ISCCP, CLAVR, Warren et al. (1986,1988) u Area of recent research t Marecal and Mahfouf (2002), Bauer et al. (2006), Weng et al. (2007) t Vukicevic et al. (2006) Image: NASA

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Regional Atmospheric Modeling Data Assimilation System (RAMDAS) u Mesoscale 4-DVAR assimilation system designed to assimilate clear and cloudy scene VIS, IR satellite data u Forward model: RAMS u Observational operator: VISIROO t SHDOM, OPTRAN, Deeter and Evans (1998) t Developed for GOES (Imager & Sounder) u Full adjoints for VISIROO and RAMS t Includes RAMS microphysics, but not convective parameterizations

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Regional Atmospheric Modeling Data Assimilation System (RAMDAS) Forward NWP model Satellite radiance over assimilation time window Forward Radiative Transfer to compute radiance from model output Reverse or adjoint of radiative transfer to compute adjoints Reverse or adjoint of NWP model to compute adjoints Update initial condition using propagated gradient of cost function. Compute gradient of cost function and decide whether it is small enough yet Generate forecast NoYes start end Greenwald et al. (2002) Zupanski et al. (2005)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, The 2 Nov 2001 Altocumulus Image:

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Imager Ch. 1 VIS 0.63  m Ch. 4 window 10.7  m Ch. 3 vapor 6.7  m Sounder Ch. 19 VIS 0.70  m Ch. 7 window 12.0  m Ch. 11 vapor 7.0  m

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment Set-Up u 75 x 75 (6 km horiz.) x 84 (stretched-z vert.) grid centered on North Platte, NE u Lateral boundaries masked to 50 x 50 x 84 to ignore boundary condition errors u RAMS initialized with 00 UTC FNL (GDAS) reanalysis data u 11 UTC output used to initialize RAMDAS u 1145 UTC GOES observations assimilated Control Variables: p  il u,v,w r ice r snow r total pressure (pert. Exner function) ice-liquid potential temperature winds ice water mixing ratio snow water mixing ratio total water mixing ratio

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Initial Forward Model Run Initial model is poor, but we’ll use it (and get valuable results) Dashed = Observed Sounding; Solid = Model Sounding Dashed = Observed Sounding; Solid = Model Sounding

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m) Before Assimilation After Assimilation Observed T b

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m) Before assimilation After assimilation

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m) Surface wind (before) Surface wind (after)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #1: Imager only GOES Imager channels 3 (6.7  m) & 4 (10.7  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m) Before Assimilation After Assimilation Observed T b

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m) Before assimilation After assimilation

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m) Surface wind (before) Surface wind (after)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #2: Sounder only GOES Sounder channels 7 (12.02  m) & 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Control Variable r l x,y [km] r l z [km] pressure temperature u-wind v-wind w-wind501.0 total water mixing ratio501.0 rain water mixing ratio500.5 snow water mixing ratio500.5 Decorrelation Lengths u Background error covariance matrix, B, in RAMDAS based on decorrelation length and variance u Assumed values of decorrelation length for each control variable shown u Decorrelation lengths and variances doubled and halved

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, u Increasing (decreasing) decorrelation length increases (decreases) impact of observations u Variance (not shown) had little effect Decorrelation Lengths Note: dashed lines correspond to soundings based on default values of decorrelation length

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Imager Experiment Sounder Experiment Decorrelation Lengths Doubled Mid-level Cloud

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Summary u GOES Imager experiment t Cooled the surface, increased upper-tropospheric humidity t Increased fog t No closer to producing mid-level cloud u GOES Sounder experiment t Produced subsidence inversion t Cooled, humidified atmosphere near 2 km AGL t Some surface cooling t No mid-level cloud, but closer to producing one u Decorrelation lengths are important t Increasing (decreasing) decorrelation length increases (decreases) effect of observations u Variance not important u Significant innovations achieved with only one observation time t Biggest changes to temperature, dew point and winds

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Conclusions u RAMDAS is designed to minimize the difference between the modeled and observed brightness temperatures t The assimilation can only modify the model state where the observations are sensitive to model variables t The mathematics doesn’t have a sense of the physics u When no cloud is present in the model, the adjoint calculates sensitivities based on having no cloud t In the GOES Imager case, ch. 4 is most sensitive to surface temperature in the absence of cloud, ch. 3 is most sensitive to upper-tropospheric humidity t GOES Sounder ch. 7 & 11 are more sensitive to low- to mid- troposphere temperature and humidity u Additional constraints are needed to ensure an appropriate physical solution

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Back to the Future u Add constraints t Surface temperature t Additional cloud information u Ideal decorrelation lengths u Log-normal distributions (Fletcher and Zupanski 2007) u More channels u More case studies t CLEX-9, CLEX-10

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Questions?

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Backup Slides

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) u Imager t Higher spatial, temporal resolution u Sounder t More channels u Experiments use window and water vapor channels t Imager ch. 3 & 4 t Sounder ch. 7 & 11 t Water vapor-only (3 & 11) Theoretical Weighting Functions

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Nov 2001 Altocumulus from CLEX-9 u RAMS run with 100 m vertical resolution initialized with Eta 40 km reanalysis t Peak RH of 85% too low to form cloud u Radiosonde dry bias? u Will assimilation of IR water vapor radiances help?

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Initial (No Assimilation) Forward Model Run

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m) Before Assimilation After Assimilation Observed T b

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m) Before assimilation After assimilation

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m) Surface wind (before) Surface wind (after)

DoD Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University February 2, Experiment #3: water vapor only GOES Imager ch 3 (6.7  m) & Sounder ch 11 (7.02  m)