OUTCOME FROM WINTER TPARC WORKSHOP

1. OUTCOME FROM WINTER TPARC WORKSHOP Zoltan Toth & Yucheng Song http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/ens/index.html

2. OUTLINE • SUMMARY • LOGISTICS • OBSERVING ASSETS • SCIENCE PLAN • OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES • APPLICATIONS / EVALUATION • OUTREACH

3. SUMMARY OBJECTIVE Improve High Impact Event (HIE) forecasts for North America by Better understanding / analyzing / predicting Processes affecting Pacific wave guide OBSERVING ASSETS Main field phase mid-January – end February 2008 Confirmed availability of NOAA G-lV, USAF C130, Russian radiosonde network SCIENCE PLAN Refined for Data assimilation, sensitivity, forecast diagnostics, applications Focus on diagnosing and improving failed forecast cases CONTRIBUTORS / PARTICIPANTS Funding for observing assets NOAA, Env. Canada, Roshydromet, Japan Science / operational aspects US, Canada, ECMWF/UK, Mexico, Russia, Japan OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Daily input from operational forecasters and researchers SDM support for 24/7 operations Agreed on Decision mechanism, timeline, contact points, communication channels EVALUATION All science hypotheses to be formulated & shared prior to field phase Thorough end-to-end evaluation within pre-Winter Olympics demo setting Proposed T-PARC session at THORPEX Symposium (Monterey, CA, May/09)

4. Objective Refine science and operations plans Date, place 8-10 Oct 2008, NCEP Attendance NOAA – NWS – NCEP – EMC Environment Canada Mexico DOD NRL AFWA International observers ECMWF, UKMET, CMA, CPTEC Presentations Informal, to expose issues and start discussion Synergy Joint session with NAEFS Workshop, 8 Oct. 2008 More information http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/ens/TPARCWkshop_Oct2008.html WORKSHOP LOGISTICS

5. OUTCOME OBSERVING SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS Preparations for observing system enhancements reviewed & acknowledged Main field phase between mid-Jan – end Febr Noted climatologically more favorable conditions in W-Pacific during Feb-Mar Found that shift from mid-Jan through end of Feb is not possible Main assets G-lV deployment to Japan (10 Jan – 28 Febr) 12Z flights favored due to noise restrictions at Yokota AFB 00Z flights would be in daytime – is that an option? Russian radiosonde enhancement 600 extra ascents during 10-15 IOPs 4 times per day (instead of standard twice a day) at selected ~20 (out of 35 total) stations – adaptive selection USAF Reserve C-130 Leverage off WSR09 deployment to Anchorage 2 aircraft, 14 Jan – 16 Febr Fly G-lV & C130 possibly at same time (12Z) Additional resources High resolution satellite derived winds NESDIS Automated Motion Vector, JMA hourly data Possible wind LIDAR measurements ONR P3 – Dave Emmitt & LIDAR WG initiative Pacific lightening data Observations to be used for Improving NWP analysis / forecasts – targeting Better understanding of dynamical / physical processes relevant for NWP forecasting

6. OUTCOME - 2 DATA ASSIMILATION Importance of DA in improving forecasts for HIE noted Flow dependent covariance needed for proper use of obs Advances in obs, DA, NWP system make this ever more important? THORPEX DAOS WG asked to suggest testable hypotheses for improving high impact weather forecasts SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Effect of DA systems on data impact must be incorporated into sensitivity / targeting analysis Potential of recent adjoint-based DA-fcst diagnostics tools noted for Observing system design Encourage use of tools for analysis of high impact events (in addition to global norms)

7. OUTCOME - 3 TARGETING Statistical nature of DA noted Targeting to be evaluated statistically Not all individual cases will show benefit Need for sustained (in time / space) observations for high impact suggested W-TPARC to sample large sensitive areas multiple times Dynamical nature of error evolution noted Need for sensitivity analysis Is it possible to predict sign, not only amplitude, of data impact on forecasts? Extended range targeting studies encouraged w adjoint / ensemble methods Follow spatial/temporal evolution of sensitive areas More promising in cases of strong dynamical developments Difficulty in blocked / cutoff cases Low perturbation growth cases not successful? Use local norm in sensitivity analysis to focus on selected high impact event Use OSE and OSSE studies for W-TPARC and other periods to Compare efficiency of SV vs. ensemble methods Derive regime dependent sensitivities Evaluate data impact both in Cumulative sense (cycling) Individual cases (use same background for analysis with / without extra data)

8. OUTCOME - 4 STUDY OF FAILED FORECASTS (“DROP-OUT CASES”) Cases of low fcst skill critical for improved high impact fcsting Add diagnostics from ensemble to separate initial state vs. model problems Compare error growth with ensemble variance growth Nonlinear error / perturbation evolution Test extension of sensitivity analysis to longer ranges Physical process modeling limitations discussed Data collection for further research Potential value of ensemble data Collaboration with ensemble community including operational centers encouraged Eg, Hovemuller diagrams of ensemble spread vs. forecast error Potential for using OSSE studies with new type of simulated nature Hires integration relaxed to follow large scales in operational analysis Check realism of upscale energy transfer & wave-breaking In-depth data impact etc analysis of W-TPARC period SOCIO-ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS Assess costs / benefits of improved products and their use for HIE Optimal design of observing system, incl adaptive component Brian Mills, Rebecca Morss to stay involved, post experiment analysis NOAA, NSF, NASA coordinated SERA initiative to include W-TPARC studies Optimization of flight tracks for fuel economy using ensemble guidance FAA – airlines? Study with G-lV? Need for strong user outreach / applications emphasized Strong link with Winter Olympics noted Complex user evaluation of T-PARC data impact in NAEFS context Winter Olympics demo project, Febr 12-28 2009 Possible TIGGE-LAM demo project in 2010

9. OUTCOME - 5 WINTER T-PARC OPERATIONS Timeline (Eastern time) 9:00 am Case selection request from 3 Natl Weather Services to SDM Researchers send additional requests to lead scientist 9:30 am Prioritized list by SDM 10:00 Lead scientist uploads case list to ECMWF DTS web page 2:00 pm Basic sensitivity results uploaded to DTS Additional sensitivity results on centers’ own websites 3-4 pm Teleconference with all scientists, consensus decision about observing system enhancements 5: pm Final decision transmitted to SDM 5:30 pm SDM sends out obs system request to CARCAH & Roshydromet Points of contact Lead Scientists – 9am – 5 pm - 1-301-763-8000 Yucheng.Song@noaa.gov (ext. 7516) Mozheng.Wei@noaa.gov (ext. 7581) Senior Duty Meteorologist (SDM) at NCEP – sdm@noaa.gov–301-763-8298 (or 301-763-8000/ext. 7361) 24/7 availability regarding case selection and observing system status

10. OUTCOME - 6 OUTREACH PIs to share science hypotheses prior to field phase Links Strong connections with NAWDEX THORPEX PDP involvement with both Winter T-PARC & NAWDEX Serving PDP goals DAOS recommendations discussed Objectives served GIFS-TIGGE Use of TIGGE data encouraged in Winter T-PARC NAEFS enhancements to feed back later into GIFS developments YOTC – Tropical influences Multi-scale forecast experiment over Pacific – 2-way nesting LAM - ONR? Additional products requested for W-TPARC Analysis uncertainty estimates (NCEP) Wave packet analysis (UM if possible) Sensitivity charts Compare with Total precipitation (diabatic processes – for detailed flight planning) Eady index (for diagnosing instantaneous instabilities) Satellite look-alike charts Show in Hovmueller diagram NCEP GEFS major upgrade for NAEFS by start of Winter T-PARC? Request from Winter Olympics demo from MSC Spread the word about Winter T-PARC Prepare Workshop summary for BAMS publication Organize Townhall meeting at AMS Annual meeting, Jan 2009 Organize special session on T-PARC (incl summer) at THORPEX Symp, May 09 Organize special session at next Cyclone Workshop

11. BACKGROUND