From NOGAPS to NAVGEM 1.1 in GOFS: A Progress Report Main performers: Joe Metzger, Alan Wallcraft (NRL) Ole Martin Smedstad, Debbie Franklin (QNA) Brief.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)
Advertisements

LRF Training, Belgrade 13 th - 16 th November 2013 © ECMWF Sources of predictability and error in ECMWF long range forecasts Tim Stockdale European Centre.
ECMWF long range forecast systems
Somali Current TYLER JANOSKI. First, let’s talk about the South-Asian Monsoon  Monsoon develops because of temperature differences between land and sea.
Experiments with Monthly Satellite Ocean Color Fields in a NCEP Operational Ocean Forecast System PI: Eric Bayler, NESDIS/STAR Co-I: David Behringer, NWS/NCEP/EMC/GCWMB.
Unit 2 World Climate Patterns… An Introduction. Distinguish between the terms weather & climate. P. 54 Weather = the state of the atmosphere at any one.
Simulation of the Onset of MJO in April 2011 using the NAVY Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean-Sea Ice Prediction System Melinda Peng 1, Chaing Chen 2 1 Naval Research.
The influence of extra-tropical, atmospheric zonal wave three on the regional variation of Antarctic sea ice Marilyn Raphael UCLA Department of Geography.
THE BEST ANALYZED AIR- SEA FLUXES FOR SEASONAL FORECASTING 2.12 Glenn H. White, W. Wang, S. Saha, D. Behringer, S. Nadiga and H.-L. Pan Global Climate.
My Agenda for CFS Diagnostics Ancient Chinese proverb: “ Even a 9-month forecast begins with a single time step.” --Hua-Lu Pan.
Recent performance statistics for AMPS real-time forecasts Kevin W. Manning – National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale.
1. a. What is shown here? weather or climate ? b. What is the local time (MDT) this analysis is valid for?
The NCEP operational Climate Forecast System : configuration, products, and plan for the future Hua-Lu Pan Environmental Modeling Center NCEP.
Chapter 6: Global Fluxes and The Deep Circulation Heat Budget Conservation of Salt Oceanic Water Masses Oceanic Mixing Temperature - Salinity Diagrams.
Aquarius/SAC-D Mission Mission Simulators - Gary Lagerloef 6 th Science Meeting; Seattle, WA, USA July 2010.
Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS 1 Evaluation of WRF Using High-Resolution Soil Initial Conditions from the NASA Land.
The first 2 terms on the RHS are nonlinear terms in the bias. The group labeled THF are transient heat advection bias. Q^ is the bias in diabatic heating.
MWR Algorithms (Wentz): Provide and validate wind, rain and sea ice [TBD] retrieval algorithms for MWR data Between now and launch (April 2011) 1. In-orbit.
Evaporative heat flux (Q e ) 51% of the heat input into the ocean is used for evaporation. Evaporation starts when the air over the ocean is unsaturated.
NOAA Climate Obs 4th Annual Review Silver Spring, MD May 10-12, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 1.SSTs for Daily SST OI NOAA’s National.
Ice Validation and Verification of the Global Ocean Forecast System 3.1 Ruth H. Preller 1, E. Joseph Metzger 1, Pamela G. Posey 1, Alan J. Wallcraft 1,
Simulation of Atlantic warm pool in the Hybrid- Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) SANG-KI LEE 1,2 CHUNZAI WANG 2, CARLOS LOZANO 3, and DAN IREDELL 3 1 UMIAMI/CIMAS,
Data Assimilation for Arctic Ice and Ocean Models Richard Allard 1, David Hebert 1, E. Joseph Metzger 1, Michael Phelps 3, Pamela Posey 1, Ole Martin Smedstad.
Ensemble-variational sea ice data assimilation Anna Shlyaeva, Mark Buehner, Alain Caya, Data Assimilation and Satellite Meteorology Research Jean-Francois.
The Atmosphere. Did you know we are on our 3 atmosphere on Earth? Earth’s original atmosphere was probably just hydrogen and helium, because these were.
Linking sea surface temperature, surface flux, and heat content in the North Atlantic: what can we learn about predictability? LuAnne Thompson School of.
CLIMATE. Weather vs Climate Weather: what is happening in the atmosphere at a particular place and time –Ex: Daily weather forecast for Minneapolis 24ºF,
Collaborative Research: Toward reanalysis of the Arctic Climate System—sea ice and ocean reconstruction with data assimilation Synthesis of Arctic System.
Comparison of Surface Turbulent Flux Products Paul J. Hughes, Mark A. Bourassa, and Shawn R. Smith Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies & Department.
On Improving GFS Forecast Skills in the Southern Hemisphere: Ideas and Preliminary Results Fanglin Yang Andrew Collard, Russ Treadon, John Derber NCEP-EMC.
CCSM Simulations w/CORE Forcing Some preliminary results and a discussion of dataset issues Marika Holland With much input from Bill Large Steve Yeager.
Teleconnections Current Weather Current Weather Finish ENSO Finish ENSO North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations Pacific.
Cooling and Enhanced Sea Ice Production in the Ross Sea Josefino C. Comiso, NASA/GSFC, Code The Antarctic sea cover has been increasing at 2.0% per.
Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS 1 Evaluation of WRF Using High-Resolution Soil Initial Conditions from the NASA Land.
U.S. Navy Global Ocean Prediction Update Key Performers: A.J. Wallcraft, H.E. Hurlburt, E.J. Metzger, J.G. Richman, J.F. Shriver, P.G. Thoppil, O.M. Smedstad,
An evaluation of satellite derived air-sea fluxes through use in ocean general circulation model Vijay K Agarwal, Rashmi Sharma, Neeraj Agarwal Meteorology.
Application of a Hybrid Dynamical-Statistical Model for Week 3 and 4 Forecast of Atlantic/Pacific Tropical Storm and Hurricane Activity Jae-Kyung E. Schemm.
How does the jet stream and water currents influence weather and climate?
Ocean Surface heat fluxes Lisan Yu and Robert Weller
Global Wind Patterns. What is Wind? Wind is the movement of air from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure. Warmer air expands, becoming.
An evaluation of a hybrid satellite and NWP- based turbulent fluxes with TAO buoys ChuanLi Jiang, Kathryn A. Kelly, and LuAnne Thompson University of Washington.
Radiative transfer in the thermal infrared and the surface source term
Climatic implications of changes in O 3 Loretta J. Mickley, Daniel J. Jacob Harvard University David Rind Goddard Institute for Space Studies How well.
Numerical Investigation of Air- Sea Interactions During Winter Extratropical Storms Presented by Jill Nelson M.S. Marine Science Candidate Graduate Research.
Ocean Dynamics Algorithm GOES-R AWG Eileen Maturi, NOAA/NESDIS/STAR/SOCD, Igor Appel, STAR/IMSG, Andy Harris, CICS, Univ of Maryland AMS 92 nd Annual Meeting,
Ocean Climate Simulations with Uncoupled HYCOM and Fully Coupled CCSM3/HYCOM Jianjun Yin and Eric Chassignet Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies.
Sources of global warming of the upper ocean on decadal period scales Warren B. White 2010/05/18 Pei-yu Chueh.
Wake Influences on Power Wind Speed, Wind Direction, Stability.
Climate and Global Change Notes 17-1 Earth’s Radiation & Energy Budget Resulting Seasonal and Daily Temperature Variations Vertical Temperature Variation.
Evaluation, Validation and Transition of the 1/12° Global HYCOM/NCODA/PIPS System Joe Metzger (1), Harley Hurlburt (1), Alan Wallcraft (1), Ole Martin.
MICHAEL A. ALEXANDER, ILEANA BLADE, MATTHEW NEWMAN, JOHN R. LANZANTE AND NGAR-CHEUNG LAU, JAMES D. SCOTT Mike Groenke (Atmospheric Sciences Major)
Insolation INcoming SOLar radiATION Strength is dependent on 1.Angle of insolation 2.Duration of insolation 3.Type of surface receiving the insolation.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Experiments at MeteoSwiss : TERRA / aerosols Flake Jean-Marie.
Coupled HYCOM in CESM and ESPC Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet.
Assessing the U.S. Navy Coupled Ice-Ocean Model vs. Recent Arctic Observations David A. Hebert 1, Richard Allard 1, Pamela Posey 1, E. Joseph Metzger 1,
Toward improved understanding of mass and property fluxes through Bering Strait Jaclyn Clement Kinney 1, Wieslaw Maslowski 1, Mike Steele 2, Jinlun Zhang.
Preliminary Evaluations of the Navy's ACNFS versus NASA IceBridge Data David Hebert 1, Richard Allard 1, Pamela Posey 1, Alan Wallcraft 1, Joseph Metzger.
1 Summary of CFS ENSO Forecast December 2010 update Mingyue Chen, Wanqiu Wang and Arun Kumar Climate Prediction Center 1.Latest forecast of Nino3.4 index.
The 2 nd phase of the Global Land-Atmosphere Coupling Experiment Randal Koster GMAO, NASA/GSFC
Factors affecting Temperature
An Assessment of the Navy's Sea Ice Outlook Predictions for 2013
A Fear-Inspiring Intercomparison of Monthly Averaged Surface Forcing
Natural Causes of Climate Change
Coupled atmosphere-ocean simulation on hurricane forecast
Agenda: Tues Opening Activity: Rocks and Glaciers Review
Shuyi S. Chen, Ben Barr, Milan Curcic and Brandon Kerns
Thermal Response II Current News and Weather Surface Energy Balance
Atlantic Ocean Forcing of North American and European Summer Climate
World Climate Patterns… An Introduction
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Presentation transcript:

From NOGAPS to NAVGEM 1.1 in GOFS: A Progress Report Main performers: Joe Metzger, Alan Wallcraft (NRL) Ole Martin Smedstad, Debbie Franklin (QNA) Brief to NAVOCEANO 26 June 2013

NAVGEM 1.1 replacing NOGAPS NAVGEM 1.1 was declared operational on 13 Mar 2013 NOGAPS to be decommissioned 31 Aug 2013 Preliminary analysis shows the two atmospheric models are different enough to cause a different upper ocean model response Two calibrations must be performed on NAVGEM 1.1 output to assure the underlying ocean model response will be consistent across the decommission time boundary 1.Calibrate NAVGEM winds to scatterometer winds 2.Calibrate heat flux relative to forecast SST error 2

NAVGEM 1.1 Wind Calibration Obtain one year of NAVGEM 1.1 output: Jun 2012 through May 2013 – Hindcast output (Jun 2012 – Jan 2013) processed and in HYCOM-ready format – Pre-OPS/OPS output (Dec 2012 →) processed daily and in HYCOM-ready format Regression analysis vs. contemporaneous scatterometer data (SSMI/S and WindSAT) – Contemporaneous scatterometer data obtained – Regression analysis completed Calibrate NAVGEM 1.1 wind speed 3

Regression Offset and Scaling Factor 4

Monthly Wind Speed Before scatterometer calibration 5

Monthly Wind Speed After scatterometer calibration 6

RSS = Remote Sensing Systems scatterometer 7

Annual Wind Curl - Global After scatterometer calibration It is not obvious at this scale, but the NAVGEM curl field is far less noisy than NOGAPS 8

Annual Wind Curl After scatterometer calibration

NAVGEM 1.1 Surface Fields With a year of NAVGEM 1.1 output, we compared monthly mean output with contemporaneous NOGAPS and NCEP CFSV2 output Highlight differences between various surface fields – 2 m air temperature, net surface shortwave radiation, 2 m specific humidity, ground-sea temperature – June and December 2012 shown Perhaps these differences are expected due to the improved physics in NAVGEM 1.1, but they will have a significant impact on the upper ocean (ice) response within HYCOM (CICE) that we must take into account 10

NAVGEM 1.1 minus NOGAPS Monthly 2 m air temperature difference (°C) NAVGEM is generally colder than NOGAPS over the ocean, but warmer over ice in the winter hemisphere (however, temps are still very cold) 11

NAVGEM 1.1 minus CFSV2 NAVGEM is also colder than CFSV2 over the ocean and colder over ice in the winter hemisphere Monthly 2 m air temperature difference (°C) 12

NAVGEM 1.1 minus NOGAPS Monthly net surface shortwave radiation difference (W/m 2 ) 13

CFSV2 minus NOGAPS CFSV2 shows similar patterns relative to NOGAPS albeit a stronger pattern Monthly net surface shortwave radiation difference (W/m 2 ) 14

CFSV2 minus NAVGEM 1.1 NAVGEM has weaker surface shortwave radiation than CFSV2 throughout the tropics and mid-latitudes; differences routinely exceed 50 W/m 2 Monthly net surface shortwave radiation difference (W/m 2 ) 15

NAVGEM 1.1 minus NOGAPS Monthly 2 m specific humidity difference (g/kg) NAVGEM has a moister lower boundary layer than NOGAPS throughout the tropics and mid-latitudes; values of 1 g/kg are ~ 10% of total signal 16

NAVGEM 1.1 minus NOGAPS Monthly ground-sea temperature difference (°C) Ocean surface analysis is consistent between NAVGEM and NOGAPS, but NAVGEM has a warmer ice temperatures than NOGAPS 17

NAVGEM 1.1 Heat Flux Calibration Using scatterometer-calibrated NAVGEM 1.1 winds, integrate a June 2012-May 2013 GOFS hindcast As this moves forward, integrate a series of 5-day forecasts – Do this every 2 nd day to provide ~15 forecasts/month – Compute SST error against verifying GOFS analyses – Compute heat flux offset for each month – Apply running temporal filter to monthly offsets 18

Hindcast to Real-time Re-integrate the June 2012-May 2013 GOFS hindcast using calibrated NAVGEM 1.1 winds and monthly varying heat flux offset – This can be started as soon as the first filtered monthly offset files become available Will need to get this hindcast to real-time in order to hand off to NAVOCEANO This will be done with the existing GOFS 3.01 configuration, i.e. GLBa0.08, energy-loan ice, 32 layers 19

Hindcast Schematic June 2012 May 2013 Hindcast with NAVGEM 1.1 scatterometer-scaled winds (GLBa ) As the above hindcast is running: Each month run multiple 5-day forecasts every other day (with NAVGEM scatterometer-scaled winds) → ~ 15 samples/month (GLBa ) Compute monthly SST error against verifying analysis → monthly heat flux offset Monthly heat flux offsets may be a bit noisy so apply a running time filter Hindcast with NAVGEM 1.1 scatterometer-scaled winds & monthly varying offset (GLBa ) This second hindcast can start as soon as the first time filtered heat flux offset is available Every third month, repeat 5-day forecasts using heat flux offset to examine the impact on forecast SST error (GLBa ) Second hindcast has to be brought up to real-time by 15 Aug 2013 (as GOFS 3.02) ‒NAVOCEANO wants to run two weeks of dual OPS 20 June 2012 Real- time

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error (5-day forecast minus verifying GOFS analysis) YYYYMM

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error (5-day forecast minus verifying GOFS analysis)

Monthly Filtered Heat Flux Offset (Based on 5-day forecast SST error)

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error Before applying heat flux offsetAfter applying heat flux offset Left: 5-day forecast SST error from first hindcast (no offset applied) Right: 5-day forecast SST error from second hindcast (offset applied) There is a significant reduction in global 5-day forecast SST error after applying heat flux offset to both the hindcast and the forecasts ‒Error is generally less than a few tenths of a degree Celsius The June 2012 correction is on the “training” output, the real test will be June

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error Before applying heat flux offsetAfter applying heat flux offset Left: 5-day forecast SST error from first hindcast (no offset applied) Right: 5-day forecast SST error from second hindcast (offset applied) There is a significant reduction in global 5-day forecast SST error after applying heat flux offset to both the hindcast and the forecasts ‒Error is generally less than a few tenths of a degree Celsius 28

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error Before applying heat flux offsetAfter applying heat flux offset Left: 5-day forecast SST error from first hindcast (no offset applied) Right: 5-day forecast SST error from second hindcast (offset applied) There is a significant reduction in global 5-day forecast SST error after applying heat flux offset to both the hindcast and the forecasts ‒Error is generally less than a few tenths of a degree Celsius 29

Monthly 5-day Forecast SST Error Operational GOFS – NOGAPS forcedHindcast GOFS – NAVGEM forced 30 Left: 5-day forecast SST error from operational GOFS 3.01 ‒Annual heat flux offset Right: 5-day forecast SST error from second NAVGEM forced hindcast ‒Monthly varying heat flux offset Smaller 5-day forecast SST error in NAVGEM forced GOFS

Monthly 5-day Forecast Ice Concentration Error (5-day forecast minus verifying HYCOM analysis) Significant summer hemisphere ice melt in the 5-day forecast in the Arctic (and Antarctic) REMEMBER: THIS IS ENERGY-LOAN ICE MODEL, NOT CICE Not a problem in the late fall/winter hemisphere 31

Monthly Filtered Heat Flux Offset 32

Monthly 5-day Forecast Ice Concentration Error (5-day forecast minus verifying HYCOM analysis) Before applying heat flux offsetAfter applying heat flux offset Left: 5-day forecast ice error from first hindcast (no offset applied) Right: 5-day forecast ice error from second hindcast (offset applied) Even after application of heat flux offset, still see significant ice reduction in the 5-day forecast ‒SST-based heat flux offset not optimal in ice covered regions ‒Problematic in both Arctic and Antarctic during summer For the ACNFS switchover to NAVGEM, we are investigating forecast ice error more thoroughly 33

ACNFS Transition to NAVGEM 1.1 Forcing 34 Integrate a June 2012 → present hindcast of ACNFS with NAVGEM scatterometer-scaled winds and monthly varying heat flux offset derived from GOFS – This has commenced and is in July 2012 Each month additionally generate 5-day forecasts and compare against NOGAPS forced pre-operational ACNFS

Monthly 5-day Forecast Ice Concentration Error (5-day forecast minus verifying HYCOM analysis) Pre-operational ACNFS NOGAPS forced Left: Pre-operational ACNFS, CICE model, annual heat flux offset Middle: Hindcast ACNFS being spun up to real-time, CICE model, monthly varying heat flux offset derived from global model Right: Second GOFS hindcast, energy loan ice model, monthly varying heat flux offset Significantly lower forecast ice error in ACNFS compared to GOFS 35 Hindcast ACNFS NAVGEM forced Hindcast GOFS NAVGEM forced