1 / 22

Jim Marquis, Yvette Richardson, Paul Markowski , David Dowell,

Our experiences with EnKF assimilation of high-res radar observations collected in the 5 June 2009 Vortex 2 t ornadic supercell . Jim Marquis, Yvette Richardson, Paul Markowski , David Dowell, Josh Wurman , Karen Kosiba , Paul Robinson. Photo by Sean Waugh. Goals of EnKF analysis.

amish
Download Presentation

Jim Marquis, Yvette Richardson, Paul Markowski , David Dowell,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Our experiences with EnKFassimilation of high-res radar observations collected in the 5 June 2009 Vortex 2 tornadicsupercell. Jim Marquis, Yvette Richardson, Paul Markowski, David Dowell, Josh Wurman, Karen Kosiba, Paul Robinson Photo by Sean Waugh

  2. Goals of EnKF analysis • Increase availability of 3-D kinematic and • thermodynamic data (dual-Doppler and in situ obs • are spatially/temporally limited). Courtesy of Paul Markowski

  3. Goals of EnKF analysis • We want a set of smoothly evolving EnKF analyses (i.e., We are not using EnKF to initialize a forecast). • Analyze roles that mesocyclone-scale processes play in tornadogenesis, maintenance, and decay: • - trajectory analysis, • - circulation/vorticity budgets, • - mid-upper level features.

  4. Model Specifics • WRF-ARW 3.2.1: -Δx,y = 500 m, 80m < Δz < 2km, [120 x 80 x 20] km3 -LFO microphysics, -open lateral BCs, -no surface fluxes, no radiation, flat terrain. Homogeneous environment:

  5. DA Specifics • DART: • Ensemble adjustment filter, • 50 members, • Localization: • Gaspari-Cohn, W = 0 @ r = 6 km • Ensemble initiation: • 10 randomly placed warm bubbles at model t0 for each member • Ensemble spread maintained with: • Additive noise added to T, Td, U, V every 5 min where radar reflectivity is > 25 dBZ, (Dowell and Wicker 2009) • Perturbations smoothed to 4 km (horiz), 2 km (vert) scales

  6. Experiment timeline “synthetic Data” Courtesy www.vortex2.org • Radar velocities assimilated every 2 minutes • OBAN: Cressman weighting • 500 m horizontal grid spacing (for 500m-model grid experiment) • data along conical slices σ2obs= (2 m/s)2

  7. Thinning the amount of observations assimilated: 50% assim’ed Unthinned 25% assim’ed Y X Radar vel. ob. Model grid No thinning done in vertical direction shown today; though, experiments show poor storm structure when low-level elevation angles are neglected.

  8. unthinned Z = 0.5 km AGL θρ (K) ζ dBZ W > 0 Y 50% assimilated Y 25% assimilated X (Note: these experiments conducted with 2-km model grid)

  9. Dual-Doppler – EnKF (ensemble mean) kinematics comparison (DOW6 & DOW7) W m/s EnKF Y (km) Dual-Doppler ζ radars X (km) Z = 400 m AGL

  10. Storm structure with/without radar assimilation: Top row: Series of EnKF (Ens. Mean) analyses. Z = 150 m Y (km) ζ X (km) Bottom row: Single member forecasted forward from 2157 (no DA). Model errors/idealized conditions require DA for a good storm.

  11. Ensemble mean analyses – temperature fields Z = 50 m ζ (Note: these experiments conducted with 1-km model grid)

  12. Z = 50 m ζ Mob. Mesonets

  13. Z = 50 m ζ Mob. Mesonets

  14. MM obs – EnKF outflow comparison • Sequence of EnKF analyses of theta’ and • MM obs(valid +/- 1 min from EnKF analysis) overlayed: Z = 50 m θ’(K) MM’s only just getting into storm, but so far - not good Not great, particularly in far left FF Decent, but still disagreement in FF Better overall, but still disagreement in FF Warmth (lasts 1-2analysis times) - Seems to disagree With few available MM obs Pretty good ζ ζ decent ok Z = 50 m My < 1 sentence impression of the agreement of MM obs and each EnKF analysis dBZ MM obs: Low-level wmax trace:

  15. Mesocyclone buoyancy (function of height & time) Positively buoyant Negatively buoyant Circulation and radial motion (function of radius & time) Inbound 0 m/s Outbound Pre-tornadic T-genesis Intensification Maturity Time (UTC) Periods of tornado lifecycle Weakening

  16. Trajectories (storm-rel.) calculated from ens. mean analyses Ring (radius = 1 km) of 20 parcels centered on peak ζ at z = 200 m; integrated forward in time from 4 times ‘ θρ (K) Most parcels rising into updraft Some parcels rising into updraft No parcels rising into updraft Few/no parcels rising into updraft W (z = 200m)

  17. Comparison across model grid resolutions θρ ‘ (K) Maturity T-genesis Weakening Pre-tornadic Intensification

  18. RMSI Total Spread Consistency Ratio

  19. θ’(K) ζ MM obs: Low-level wmax trace:

  20. Summary • EnKF Kinematic Analyses: • -Compare well with dual-Doppler fields of similar scale. • -Storm-scale structure robust with different model scale. • More details come with finer model grid res. • EnKF Thermo Analyses: • Mixed success with comparisons to MM in situ obs (where available). • 500-m model grid seems verify with MM obs best in mesocyclone area (partially due to more details captured?) • Seemingly random, possibly unphysical(?) anomalies appear more prominently with finer model resolution.

  21. Questions • Different way to maintain ensemble spread (adaptive methods)? • How else can we determine plausibility of analyses (kinematic and thermodynamic)? • Forcing terms along parcel trajectories? • More rigorous methods for optimizing scales/amounts of observations (compared to model resolution)?

  22. Acknowledgements • The EnKF experiments were performed using NCAR CISL supercomputing facilities with the Data Assimilation Research Testbed (DART) and WRF-ARW software. • Thank you to Glen Romine, Lou Wicker, Dan Dawson, Chris Snyder, and Nancy Collins for advice/help. • Thanks to all VORTEX2 crew for their dedication while collecting data on 5 June 2009. • This research is funded by NSF grants: NSF-AGS-0801035, NSF-AGS-0801041. The DOW radars are NSF Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities supported by NSF-AGS-0734001.

More Related