The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct. 2005. 1 Spatial Variability of Random.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Basics of numerical oceanic and coupled modelling Antonio Navarra Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia Italy Simon Mason Scripps Institution.
Advertisements

2. The WAM Model: Solves energy balance equation, including Snonlin
Global trends in air-sea CO 2 fluxes based on in situ and satellite products Rik Wanninkhof, NOAA/AOML ACE Ocean Productivity and Carbon Cycle (OPCC) Workshop.
1 st Joint GOSUD/SAMOS Workshop The Florida State University 1 Sensitivity of Surface Turbulent Fluxes to Observational Errors  or.
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.
Hurricanes and Atlantic Surface Flux Variability Mark A. Bourassa 1,2, Paul J. Hughes 1,2, Jeremy Rolph 1, and.
Introduction Air stagnation is a meteorological condition when the same air mass remains over an area for several days to a week. Light winds during air.
A statistical method for calculating the impact of climate change on future air quality over the Northeast United States. Collaborators: Cynthia Lin, Katharine.
Semyon A. Grodsky and James A. Carton, University of Maryland, College Park, MD The PIRATA (PIlot Research Array moored in the Tropical Atlantic) project.
Princeton University Global Evaluation of a MODIS based Evapotranspiration Product Eric Wood Hongbo Su Matthew McCabe.
Comparison and Evaluation of Scatterometer (SCR) observed wind data with buoy wind data Xinzhong Zhang Remote Sensing December 8 th, 2009.
1 High Resolution Daily Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Errors Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, CICS) Dudley B. Chelton (Oregon State University)
WATER VAPOR OBSERVATIONS AND PROCESSES Long Beach, 11. Feb The atmospheric moisture budget in the Arctic – introducing and applying a consistent.
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.
1 Improved Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analyses for Climate NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Thomas M. Smith Richard W. Reynolds Kenneth.
1 NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center April 2005 Climate Observation Program Blended SST Analysis Changes and Implications for the Buoy Network 1.Plans.
Review High Resolution Modeling of Steric Sea-level Rise Tatsuo Suzuki (FRCGC,JAMSTEC) Understanding Sea-level Rise and Variability 6-9 June, 2006 Paris,
Climate quality data and datasets from VOS and VOSClim Elizabeth Kent and David Berry National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
OCO Review 2006 Tropical Cyclone Activity  and  North Atlantic Decadal Variability of Ocean Surface Fluxes Mark.
1 Comparisons of Daily SST Analyses for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, NCDC) Dudley B. Chelton.
Paleoclimatology Why is it important? Angela Colbert Climate Modeling Group October 24, 2011.
10.1 Levy & Alpert: Model sensitivity to sub-grid flux parameterization - 9th IOAS-AOLS Symposium MODEL SENSITIVITY TO SPACE- AND IN SITU- BASED SUB-GRID.
Diurnal Water and Energy Cycles over the Continental United States Alex Ruane John Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography / UCSD February 27 th, 2006.
Applications for Fine Resolution Marine Observations Mark A. Bourassa.
Comparison of Surface Turbulent Flux Products Paul J. Hughes, Mark A. Bourassa, and Shawn R. Smith Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies & Department.
CCSM Simulations w/CORE Forcing Some preliminary results and a discussion of dataset issues Marika Holland With much input from Bill Large Steve Yeager.
Dataset Development within the Surface Processes Group David I. Berry and Elizabeth C. Kent.
Spatial Variability of Random Error and Biases in the FSU3 Winds Mark A. Bourassa and Shawn R. Smith Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The.
Automated Weather Observations from Ships and Buoys: A Future Resource for Climatologists Shawn R. Smith Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies.
Diurnal Water and Energy Cycles over the Continental United States Alex Ruane John Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography / UCSD April 28 th, 2006 This.
Fluxes With input from: USCLIVAR Working Group on High-Latitude Fluxes: Ed Andreas, Cecelia Bitz, Dave Carlson, Ivana Cerovecki, Meghan Cronin‏, Will Drennan,
Why We Care or Why We Go to Sea.
Evaluation of climate models, Attribution of climate change IPCC Chpts 7,8 and 12. John F B Mitchell Hadley Centre How well do models simulate present.
The climate and climate variability of the wind power resource in the Great Lakes region of the United States Sharon Zhong 1 *, Xiuping Li 1, Xindi Bian.
R. A. Brown 2003 U. Concepci Ó n Nov 9 ‘96 18Z Gulf of Alaska rab.
Temporal Variability of Thermosteric & Halosteric Components of Sea Level Change, S. Levitus, J. Antonov, T. Boyer, R. Locarnini, H. Garcia,
An evaluation of satellite derived air-sea fluxes through use in ocean general circulation model Vijay K Agarwal, Rashmi Sharma, Neeraj Agarwal Meteorology.
Graduate Course: Advanced Remote Sensing Data Analysis and Application A COMPARISON OF LATENT HEAT FLUXES OVER GLOBAL OCEANS FOR FOUR FLUX PRODUCTS Shu-Hsien.
Wind Stress Data Products for Model Comparison 2012 ECCO Meeting California Institute of Technology David Moroni 10/31/12.
Evapotranspiration Estimates over Canada based on Observed, GR2 and NARR forcings Korolevich, V., Fernandes, R., Wang, S., Simic, A., Gong, F. Natural.
1. Analysis and Reanalysis Products Adrian M Tompkins, ICTP picture from Nasa.
Ocean Surface heat fluxes Lisan Yu and Robert Weller
Characterization of Errors in Turbulent Heat Fluxes Caused by Different Heat and Moisture Roughness Length Parameterizations 1. Background and Motivation.
IOVWST Meeting May 2011 Maryland Calibration and Validation of Multi-Satellite scatterometer winds Topics  Estimation of homogeneous long time.
Evaluation of the Real-Time Ocean Forecast System in Florida Atlantic Coastal Waters June 3 to 8, 2007 Matthew D. Grossi Department of Marine & Environmental.
Ocean Surface heat fluxes
Diurnal Water and Energy Cycles over the Continental United States from three Reanalyses Alex Ruane John Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography / UCSD.
Surface Observations in The Southern Ocean, Variability, and the Consequences.
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.
1 Daily OI Analysis for Sea Surface Temperature NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, NCDC) Thomas M. Smith (NOAA,
Direct aerosol radiative effects based on combined A-Train observations Jens Redemann, Y. Shinozuka, J. Livingston, M. Vaughan, P. Russell, M.Kacenelenbogen,
Ocean Data Assimilation for SI Prediction at NCEP David Behringer, NCEP/EMC Diane Stokes, NCEP/EMC Sudhir Nadiga, NCEP/EMC Wanqiu Wang, NCEP/EMC US GODAE.
Climate variability in wind waves from VOS visual observations Vika Grigorieva & Sergey Gulev, IORAS, Moscow  Climatology of visually observed wind waves.
Description of the IRI Experimental Seasonal Typhoon Activity Forecasts Suzana J. Camargo, Anthony G. Barnston and Stephen E.Zebiak.
1 Summary of CFS ENSO Forecast August 2010 update Mingyue Chen, Wanqiu Wang and Arun Kumar Climate Prediction Center 1.Latest forecast of Nino3.4 index.
Understanding and Improving Marine Air Temperatures David I. Berry and Elizabeth C. Kent National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
A new strategy, based on the adjustment of initialized simulations, to understand the origin of coupled climate models errors Benoît Vannière, Eric Guilyardi,
1. Analysis and Reanalysis Products
A Fear-Inspiring Intercomparison of Monthly Averaged Surface Forcing
MET3220C & MET6480 Computational Statistics
A Comparison of Profiling Float and XBT Representations of Upper Layer Temperature Structure of the Northwestern Subtropical North Atlantic Robert L.
OCEAN RESPONSE TO AIR-SEA FLUXES Oceanic and atmospheric mixed
Jackie May* Mark Bourassa * Current affilitation: QinetiQ-NA
Intraseasonal latent heat flux based on satellite observations
Mark A. Bourassa and Qi Shi
Impacts of High Resolution SST Fields on Objective Analysis of Wind Fields Mark A. Bourassa Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies & Department.
Aquarius SSS space/time biases with respect to Argo data
Panel: Bill Large, Bob Weller, Tim Liu, Huug Van den Dool, Glenn White
FSOI adapted for used with 4D-EnVar
NOAA Objective Sea Surface Salinity Analysis P. Xie, Y. Xue, and A
Presentation transcript:

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Spatial Variability of Random Error and Biases in the FSU3 Winds Mark A. Bourassa, Shawn R. Smith and Jim O’Brien Help from Paul Hughes and Robert Banks Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Goals  Estimate biases and uncertainties in FSU3 gridded products  FSU3 Winds are fluxes are  Objectively derived based on in situ data  1x1° grid over water  Fluxes: stress, sensible heat, latent heat  Flux related fields: Pseudostress components, air temperature, atmospheric humidity, scalar wind speed  SSTs from Reynolds  Objectively estimate uncertainty based largely on the in situ data  Determine spatially and temporally varying uncertainty fields  Assess preliminary results through comparison to a satellite derived product

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Historical Background  FSU monthly winds are based solely on in situ observations  They are used nationally and internationally for many applications.  ENSO forecasting is a common application.  Problems were becoming evident in the old (subjective) FSU winds.  The new FSU wind products (FSU2 and FSU3) was developed to better handle the problems.  Replacement of subjective FSU winds with new objective technique  Objective re-analyzed Pacific pseudo-stress fields (FSU2) are  Operational objective quick-look fields began in Feb  FSU3 winds and fluxes are expected to be released soon.

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct The ‘New’ in ‘New FSU’  Objective gridding technique (original FSU winds were subjectively drawn).  Fast  Consistent  Independently weight observations from different types of platforms  The weights for different types of platforms are determined objectively.  FSU2 classified platforms as VOS, buoy, or ‘not to be used.’  FSU3 classifies observations as VOS, moored buoy, drifting buoy, or ‘not to be used.’  FSU3 uses a state of the air flux model (see poster for details)

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Example VOS and Buoy Observations Dec. Average from Buoys VOS

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Example Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Example VOS and Buoy Observations Dec. Average from VOS Buoys

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Example Latent Heat Fluxes (January 1998 and August 1999

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Considerations For Gridded Fields  There are several problems that must be overcome  Filling the gaps  A good approximation  Must have realistic spatial trends  Removing the edge effects due to overlapping ship tracks (or buoy chains)  Poor techniques will introduce too much spurious divergence/curl  Ocean models are highly sensitive to divergence/curl  Avoid excessive smoothing  Filter out bad data

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct The Gridding Process  The gridding technique (Bourassa et al. 2005, JCLIM (FUS2)) is an improvement from our variational method (Pegion et al. 2000, MWR) applied to scatterometer winds  Three types of constraints on the solution field  Misfits to observations, for each type of observational platform  RMS sum of misfits to each pseudostress component  Misfit to curl of background field  A penalty function with respect to the background field  The data to which these constraints are applied are scaled to be dimensionally consistent  The background fields are based on the observational data.  The weights for constraints are objectively estimated through cross validation

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Standard Deviation of Differences in Monthly Zonal Pseudostress  The relatively poor results in the Western Pacific (around 179E and 15N) are due to a data void. New FSU Winds Old FSU Winds

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Future FSU3 Wind and Flux Products  1 degree rather than 2 degree grid spacing.  Product includes fluxes and flux-related variables.  Additional basins  Indian Ocean: nearly finished  North and Tropical Atlantic Ocean: nearly finished  North Pacific Ocean: expected in late 06 or early 07  Radiative Fluxes  Later flux data sets will include Bill Rossow’s ISCCP radiative fluxes.

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Consideration in the Calculation of Uncertainty  Several factors contribute to uncertainty in gridded products  Observational uncertainty (Kent, Taylor, and Challenor, IJRS, 19)  Sampling-related uncertainty  Gaps in the observations  Variability at higher frequencies than can be resolved with the observations  Results in non-uniform error characteristics if the averaging volume is too small X X  Biases are important, but difficult to assess without comparison data.  Geophysical difference should be considered  Representation error:  Data from one location is not a perfect match to other locations  Propagation of error from nearby grid points  Errors related to non-linearity in parameterizations of fluxes

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Comparison Data  Advantages of scatterometer data  Much better temporal sampling  Spatial sampling is much more uniform  ~92% of the ice free oceans covered each day.  The daily number of SeaWinds observations is approximately equal to the annual number of ship and buoy observations that enter the GTS data stream.  QSCAT winds are very accurate (Bourassa et al JGR)  Differences from in situ winds (Bourassa et al JCLIM)  Equivalent neutral winds - stability influences  Current relative winds  Wave modifications to stress are at least partially accounted for  The validation data are from two scatterometers:  SeaWinds on QSCAT (53 months)  The QSCAT data are gridded on a half degree grid.  A similar objective method is applied (Pegion et al MWR)

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Validation with SeaWinds on QuikSCAT Means (FSU3 minus Scatterometer)  Standard deviation of QSCAT and FSU3 differences  Zonal pseudostress (upper left)  Meridional pseudostress (upper right)  Wind speed (lower left) ZonalMerid Spd m 2 s -2 ms -1

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Validation with SeaWinds on QuikSCAT Means (FSU3 minus Scatterometer)  Standard deviation of QSCAT and FSU3 differences  Zonal pseudostress (upper left)  Meridional pseudostress (upper right)  Wind speed (lower left) Spd MeridZonal m 2 s -2 ms -1

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Observational Uncertainty Observational Error + Sampling Error Sept July m 2 s -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Observational Uncertainty Observational Error + Sampling Error March m 2 s -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Uncertainty in Background Zonal Pseudostress (Sept. 1992)  Uncertainty including observational and representation errors (upper left)  Total uncertainty in background: observational, representation, and sampling (upper right).  Standard deviation of differences with QSCAT (53 months) m 2 s m 2 s -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Uncertainty in Background Zonal Pseudostress (July 1985)  Uncertainty including observational and representation errors (upper left)  Total uncertainty in background: observational, representation, and sampling (upper right).  Standard deviation of differences with QSCAT (53 months) m 2 s -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Uncertainty in the Background Zonal Pseudostress (March 1983)  Uncertainty including observational and representation errors (upper left)  Total uncertainty in background: observational, representation, and sampling (upper right).  Standard deviation of differences with QSCAT (53 months) m 2 s -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Conclusions  The fields produced by this objective technique are vastly superior in quality to previous subjectively derived fields.  Accuracy is improved  spurious forcing related to noise in the observational pattern should be greatly reduced  Technique for determining uncertainty for pseudostress components is working well.  Spatially and temporally variable uncertainty  Patterns and magnitudes are similar to those from FSU3/scatterometer comparison.  Remaining to do:  Code determination of final uncertainty via functional.  Add fluxes and other flux-related variables.  Uncertainties, relative to scatterometer fields, are typically in the range of to 0.015Nm -2

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Validation with SeaWinds on QuikSCAT Standard Deviations  Standard deviation of QSCAT and FSU3 differences  Zonal pseudostress (upper left)  Meridional pseudostress (upper right)  Wind speed (lower left) Zonal Merid Spd

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Validation with SeaWinds on QuikSCAT Standard Deviations  Standard deviation of QSCAT and FSU3 differences  Zonal pseudostress (upper left)  Meridional pseudostress (upper right)  Wind speed (lower left) ZonalMerid Spd

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Mean Differences in Monthly Zonal Pseudostress (FSU minus scatterometer)  The patterns in the zonal winds are related to the currents. Scatterometer winds are current relative, whereas the FSU winds are earth relative. New FSU Winds Old FSU Winds

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Mean Differences in Monthly Meridional Pseudostress (FSU minus scatterometer)  The Meridional differences indicate that neither the subjective or objective FSU winds capture the strong Meridional convergence about the ITCZ. New FSU Winds Old FSU Winds

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Standard Deviation of Differences in Monthly Meridional Pseudostress  The meridional standard deviations have a local maximum about the ITCZ and in the area of the SPCZ.  The VOS observation pattern is easily identifiable in the subjective FSU winds. New FSU Winds Old FSU Winds

The Florida State University MARCDAT2 Oct Previous state of the art (same scale) Wave data greatly improve match to observations.