PAC meeting 6/6/2011

5.1: Reporting of the activities in the first half of 2011

Actions issued directly from the GA to which I focused my attention since January SURFEX: some momentum was created (with a critical mass of interested ALADIN/ALARO experts); First tests were carried out that serve as input for the SURFEX SC. To be discussed later during this meeting. Post-Brac strategy planning for dynamics: to be discussed later in this PAC meeting. Convergence actions, see next slides. OOPS, will be discussed later during this meeting (by Claude).

Background: Change of definition AROME vs. ALARO (GA in Cascais) Meso-NH science Cost affordabability (NWP science) IFS/ARPEGE/ALADIN/ALAROAROME global to 5 km 2.5 km and below IFS/ARPEGE/ALADIN/ALARO/AROME Quick implementation Cont’d NWP implementation Multiscale solution(s)

Status option “3-bis” Two meetings took place: one during the ALADIN workshop in Norrkoping and in Toulouse (Radmila, Francois, Eric, Yann, Daan and myself). Concrete steps take: The ALARO experts will carry out the work The first step is to clearly define 3MT currently means and I asked/and insist to produce a document. During the second meeting in Toulouse a quite extensive list of tests have been proposed A stay took place in Prague (week of 23-27/5) (Joris Van den Bergh, Be, working with Radmila and myself) with a twofold aim (a) train Joris and (b) formulate the solution of the protection of the convective cloud part against evaporation. We could not yet produce a finalized document before this PAC meeting, but Joris started to write the proposal last week. In the near future: write the documentation and organize a meeting in MF, to ensure that the WG agrees on the “definition of 3MT”. Start the tests REMARK: it would be nice to publish results (this could be a motivational aspect for this WG). For instance, test 3MT in the tropics. e.g. diurnal cycle of deep convection (we will NOT hold a beauty contest). Joris has also acquired expertise on APLMPHYS and may then continue the work of ICE3 in APLMPHYS, as a replacement of Meral. For ICE3 it is necessary that I take up contact wit the AROME and the meso-NH group (so far I had very little to none), see discussion on the planning later.

Summary of the convergence process `convergence' WG: is not finalized but on track, but we need results. I will shift my attention to this in the second half of 2011 (with additional Belgium man power). Action needed in the near future: take contact with the AROME and meso-NH group (who?). I would like to have a discussion the involved people about the ambitions (cfr. APLPAR) PROCEED STEP BY STEP!!!

Highlights

Overview Model performance Radar data assimilation Innovation in data assimilation techniques Physics-dynamics interaction Verification of EPS A work plan for dynamics (addressing the strategic efficiency/scalability question)

The global model

Performance AROME

ALARO Improvement of ALARO at 4.5 km with respect to 9 km, Czech Republic: standard deviation Improvements of ALARO with SURFEX, tests in Brussels

Performance GLAMEPS GLAMEPS now performs better than EPS of ECMWF.

Operational AROME radar assimilation in MF: the ARAMIS network

Radar assimilation efforts: HIRLAM- LACE Denmark Sweden (first experiments) Ireland Netherlands (close to operational) Norway (first experiments) Austria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Romania Slovakia Slovenia Next meeting in Autumn: invite non-LACE non-MF countries!

Comparison of DSC, ET, EDA: example of the spread-skill RMSE vs spread for different assimilation techniques Work of our Hungarian colleagues, presented by Gergely in Norrkoping.

20 “ Development of an operational data assimilation system for LACE” Project results/Achievements  Centralized pre-processing of observations OPLACE  Installation of atmosph. (3DVAR) and soil (CANARI OI)  analysis systems in LACE centers  Enhanced use of high frequency observations –RUC,  Use of high resolution observations -national observations Data Assimilation Working days: 2010: results intercomparisons - test over June 2010 period 2011: next intercomparison, final review of DA set-ups New observations : GPS, Radar data,, IASI Country 3DVAR (atmospheric analysis) Optimum Interpolation (soil analysis) DataBlending AU Experimental (2009)Experimental (2008) OPLACE + local SYNOP + GPS No CRO Experimental (2009)Experimental (2008)OPLACE + local SYNOPNo CZ Experimental (2008)Operational (2006)OPLACE + local SYNOPOperational (2001) HU Operational (2005)Operational (2008) OPLACE (including local SYNOP of HU) No RO Experimental (2010) OPLACENo SI Experimental (2009)Experimental (2008)OPLACE + local SYNOPNo SK NoExperimental (2010)OPLACE + local SYNOPOperational (2007)

DA: some conclusions The HIRLAM hybrid approach is attractive Because ensemble techniques may be more scalable and would allow to obtain the same performance as a full 4D var system 3Dvar system are being installed in many ALADIN countries (only MF is running 4Dvar) and also several ALADIN countries are running an EPS system (GLAMEPS, LAEF, LAMEPS in Hu) The wavelet technique shows that it may improve the EnsDA. How to export the radar assimilation to the other countries: there is currently an effort between HIRLAM and LACE. Other ALADIN countries?

spectral linear diffusion reduced by factor 10 for T,q and VOR and by factor 50 for DIV (left) vertical velocities from adiabatic run obtained with the original diffusion tuning (right) We should not Be too dogmatic About “spectral” resolution!

spectral linear diffusion reduced by factor 10 for T,q and VOR and by factor 50 for DIV (left) vertical velocities from adiabatic run obtained with the original diffusion tuning (right) We should not Be too dogmatic About “spectral” resolution! Physics-dynamics Interaction

4 th order treatment of the advection of water vapor (Cz) There is no indication to gain anything atr scales from 9 to 4.5 km. No improvement in accuracy from a grid point discretization The main obstacle is in the scalability of the FFT algorithm.

Economic value of EPS systems

Conclusions GLAMEPS performs better than ECMWF in terms of economic value Using the LAEF system and GLAMEPS together improves both Strategic implication: There is an evolution in Europe of different countries developing their own LAM EPSs Accepting that, it means that the future will be in the optimized use of the data generated by the European multi-EPSs. Verification is complicated, but for EPS, the complication is even an/several order(s) of magnitude bigger. The future is probably in scores that measure the economic value, directly aimed at the end user?

The problem of the IO s

Work plan for dynamics (long term) (a) Separately explore the switch to grid-point methods for limited parts of the dynamical core (computation of derivatives, SI solver). Remaining in the current staggering (A-grid) an horizontal finite volume (or elements) method should be implemented and tested as an alternative to the bi-Fourier spectral method for LAM derivatives. In order to remove only the "spectral" option while keeping the SI option, this requires the implementation of a 3D grid-point solver and test of the results/performances all the rest being kept identical. These studies should be led from the scientific as well as from the computer points of view (scalability...): this will be the subject of a PhD study (Be). (b) Final examination of the issue of horizontal staggering. If needed, i.e. in case of difficulties with the finite-volume vorticity-divergence formulation an alternative to A-grid will have to be sought, for permitting a viable finite-volume formulation. It was mentioned before (last year) by meso-NH people to test other dynamical cores: Has anything been done, or is anything planned?

Improved LBCs: Boyd's proposal Test: perfect model tests of the 1999 Lothar storm

Priorities for 2012

Priorities of the 2012 plan the installation of the SURFEX Steering Committee; the evaluation of the use of SURFEX in all applications (by the SURFEX SC); include the LAM community in the OOPS project; make an effort to extend the LACE data- assimilation coordinated efforts for having 3Dvar to more ALADIN countries, where, in the long term, the hybrid approach of HIRLAM seems to be an interesting avenue with several attractive features; start the work plan on the dynamics and incorporate it in the 2012 plan; set up of a HIRLAM-ALADIN task force on verification; endorse the research on physics-dynamics interaction (including physics-dynamics interfacing) and the development of new parameterizations aimed the high resolutions.

Priorities for the second half of 2011 Finalize COSP. Start PhD on dynamics `convergence actions': – find a replacement for Meral Sezer. – Proceed with 3MT in ARPEGE. – Have a first meeting with the AROME and meso-NH specialists.

Other critical issues The link with the OPERA program A general lack of organized activities on forecast verification

5.2 Preparation of the 2012 workplan

Procedure Reminder: last year we wrote a common ALADIN-HIRLAM work plan for So this is also planned for this year The exercise was quite burdened. Reminder all the parties involved: CSSI: help the PM in writing the content of the work plan, i.e. the subjects and the priorities. The LTMs: provide the manpower and monitor the activities HMG at the HIRLAM side: write the plan per subject.

Time table, a first sketch PAC meetingEstablish the list if priorities for June Visit KNMI by P. Termonia to start the redaction with J. Onvlee Last week of August Meeting of the HIRLAM Management Group to produce a first draft 14 October 2011 (EWGLAM) Finalize the workplan NovemberGeneral Assembly

Question QUESTION: to what extent are the activities of the meso-NH group (who develop/maintain the physics of AROME) part of the planning process, and by extension, to what extent, are these activities part of the ALADIN consortium (work plans, strategy, workshops,...)? Currently they are reported (at least I tried) in the midterm report Related to this question: How will the planning be carried out for the AROME part? Proposal: Visit to Toulouse (in July or August) by the myself, with the relevant AROME and meso- NH people (who? Yann Seity, Christine Lac,...)

5.4 Strategy

“overnight” wrap up of the discussion on the strategy meeting and a proposal

GOAL Task from the GA: “The GA took note on the current situation about strategic issues and welcomed the invitation to the forthcoming workshop devoted to strategy and planning organized by HIRLAM next year (with Heads of the Research as targeted participants). The PAC should evaluate the outcomes and is supposed to extract a document for the GA. The GA will look forward to hearing more details during its next Session.” Problem: HoRs is not a goverance body of the consortium. Who to invite? What body? MoU4 ToR of PAC: “The PAC reviews and updates the ALADIN strategic objectives, taking into account user requirements and the application priorities of the Members and acceding Members.” Brac-HR was common between ALADIN and HIRLAM. Here we touch a fundamental issue of the merge of the governance of the 2 consortia, and the need for joint PAC-HAC meetings and GA-Council meetings. CONCLUSION: we are not ready for this since we need more debate on that in both HAC and PAC. (we only started the new MoU's with new PAC and HAC, it is too early).

Practical constraints and approaches to deal with them Budget constraints: for traveling |-> national travel money + evaluate whether some reallocation of FR missions. Who to invite? |-> limited number CSSI members (12 may be not posible) + if needed extra expert(s), PAC trusts the judgement of PM and CSSI chair in this.

Proposal No joint meeting between HAC and PAC Organize the meeting by the CSSI (subjet to budget constraints) + extra experts up to judgement of PM and CSSI chair Location: central. Brussels, Toulouse, or De Bilt. This has to be discussed with Jeanette. When? The week of 26 September. Deliverable that will go the GA: an update of the 10-y ALADIN strategy document ( ) taking into account – The outcome of the Brac-HR meeting (+post- Brac discussions group of 4, PAC discussion) – Some extra input on DA and EPS, up to the judgment of the CSSI chair and the PM – A technical analysis of the overlap/disjoint goals between the ALADIN and the HIRLAM strategy After that, there will be an correspondence between PM, CSSI chair and PAC. The latter will review the update. Time table: before the Bureau meeting. Bureau meeting, PAC chair with the help pf PM and CSSI will provide the evaluation for the GA. REMARK: The aim is to organise this jointly with HIRAM (HMG). I will discuss and decide with Jeanette next week. BUT the proposal can be in its most minimalistic way carried out by ALADIN.