Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Comparing initial large-scale fields from two HWRF runs with GFS analysis --Two HWRF configurations ❶ H14C : GSI is used on Domain 1 ❷ T14C: GSI is not used Domain 1 --GFS analysis 0.5X0.5 grib2 data are used 1
2
domains D01 (27km) ghost_d02 (9km) ghost_d03 (3km) T14C Using GFS analysis 20°x20°4 nodes11 min10°x10°8 nodes12 min Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO, TDR data on GFS-HWRF blended coordinate (75 vertical levels) Turn on non-linear QC for conventional data Conventional data and TDR data Turn on non-linear QC for conventional data H14C 80°x80°3 nodes18 min N/A 15°x15°10 nodes24 min Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO on HWRF coordinate (61 vertical levels) Conventional data and TDR data From Mingjing Tong H14C vs T14C 2
3
Procedure 1.Get data of both HWRF runs from hpss for all cycles in EPAC and ATL in Aug of 2012 and 2013. Total 447 cycles. 2. Use “copygb” to map HWRF domain 1 to the same grid of GFS data (0.5X0.5), hr_grid="255 0 720 361 90000 000000 136 -90000 -500 500 500 0" 3. Calculate bias ( mean differences (HWRF – GFS), RMS difference for a given point. SPFH not available in HWRF but available in GFS. Calculated both for consistent comparison. 3
4
Distribution of the number of available data points # of Cycles in Aug 2012: 296 = 77E + 219L # of Cycles in Aug 2013: 151 = 108E + 43L Total: 447 4
5
HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis 5 HGT (850mb, 500mb) TMP (850mb, 500mb) RH (850mb, 500mb) SPFH (850mb, 500mb) Wind speed (850mb, 500mb) U (850mb, 500mb) V (850mb, 500mb)
6
H14C – GFST14C – GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 6
7
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 7
8
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 8
9
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 9
10
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 10
11
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 11
12
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 12
13
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 13
14
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 14
15
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 15
16
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 16
17
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 17
18
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 18
19
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 19
20
20 Why wind speed close, but wind components different ? - Select one cycle to take a closer look
21
21 TMP RH HGT T14C minus GFS analysis Storm 04L 2013 2013080118 cycle 850mb Scalars
22
22 Wind speed U V Wind Large differences appear on the left part of domain.
23
23 HWRF GFS analysis WRFOUT netcdf Implication: POST different or one has error
24
HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis 24 HGT (850mb) TMP RH SPFH Wind speed U V
25
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 25
26
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 26
27
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 27
28
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 28
29
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 29
30
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 30
31
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 31
32
HWRF F72 vs GFS F72 32 HGT (850mb) TMP RH SPFH Wind Speed U V
33
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 33
34
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 34
35
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 35
36
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 36
37
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 37
38
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 38
39
H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 39
40
40 Summary 1. HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis T14C (without GSI) is better than H14C (with GSI) in terms of scalar fields (HGT, TMP, RH, SPFH). U/V differences are large for both. POST is very likely the error source. 2. HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis Largest difference is temperature over land. Both colder/wetter than GFS analysis. Spatial patterns of other differences somewhat correlate with TMP. Difference between T14C and H14C after 72hr integration not obvious, with T14C slightly better. 3. HWRF F72 vs GFS F72 Very similar, except temperature over land. Seem that spatial patterns of other variables ~ tmp. Better LSM will make comparison better.
41
41
42
42
43
04L_2013080118 f00 TMP HGT RH TMP H14C minus GFS analysis 850mb H14C 43
44
UV Speed 44
Similar presentations
