1 / 8

STMAS3D and LAPS Analysis Different between STMAS and LAPS

STMAS3D and LAPS Analysis Different between STMAS and LAPS Multigrid level, Variational method, Capacity of adding Constraints on different scale STMAS3D Analysis field : grid (153*141*21); 9km resolution Analysis Variables: U,V,Height,Temperature, Specific Humidity

gitano
Download Presentation

STMAS3D and LAPS Analysis Different between STMAS and LAPS

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. STMAS3D and LAPS Analysis • Different between STMAS and LAPS • Multigrid level, Variational method, Capacity of adding Constraints on different scale • STMAS3D Analysis field : grid (153*141*21); 9km resolution • Analysis Variables: U,V,Height,Temperature, Specific Humidity • Background Ingest : NFS15km • Current Observations Ingest: sfc: SYNOP,METAR,SHIP,BUOY,mso,shp,agr,cum, SOUNDING, ACAR & RADAR (RCWF,RCHD,RCCG,RCKT) • No. of obs: U and V: 200, Temp: 200, Height: 150, SH: 40 Most data obtained at : 00,12UTC and 06,18UTC

  2. Obs is not always correctQC problem (b) (a) 47927 SYNOP HT: 41 Slp: 975 Sfp: 980 47917 SYNOP HT: 9 Slp: 979 Sfp: 979 47912 SYNOP HT: 36 Slp: 984 Sfp: 986 72K22 LDAD HT:35 Sfp:991 47918 SYNOP HT: 7 Slp: 975 Sfp: 975 (c) ONDB SYNOP HT: 0 Slp: 978 Sfp: 978 950mb HT field in contour and obs (a) bkg, (b) anl, (c) anl after delete 72K22 sfp obs data.

  3. (b) (a) (c) 1000mb HT field in contour (a) bkg, (b) anl, (c) anl after delete 72K22 sfp obs data.

  4. Radar Ingest Problem: List of the RCCG data ingest during AUG 07-08 marked as CWB: cwb have all variables records in the file miss : cwb have the file but miss amiuth,elev,time and VEL records shaded as YELLOW: radar ingest at GSD do not cover (the files do not save by Jenny during AUG 07 1900- AUG 08 1200 UTC)

  5. List of the RCKT data ingest during AUG 07-08 marked as CWB: cwb have all variables records in the file miss : cwb have the file but miss amiuth,elev,time and VEL records shaded as YELLOW: radar ingest at GSD do not cover (the files do not save by Jenny during AUG 07 1900- AUG 08 1200 UTC)

  6. No RCCG & RCKT VEL from cwb (c) (a) (b) (d) AUG 08 00UTC 800 and 700mb Wspd increment Radar Ingest (a), (b) from cwb, (c), (d) from other sources.

  7. (a) (c) (b) (d) AUG 08 00UTC 600 and 500mb Wspd increment Radar Ingest (a), (b) from cwb, (c), (d) from other sources.

  8. Questions and Challenge: PART 1: As an anlysis tool, How do the analysis adjust the bkg field with the benefit from different obs? Can STMAS3D show local finer scale that the bkg do not cover? Improving the typhoon wind structure and local scale analysis ?? PART 2: As an initial condition, • Can STMAS provide a better initial condition for model forecasts to improved the intensity and track and even rainfall forecasts with the ‘hot-start’? • Improving the model forecasts ??

More Related