1 / 19

Limited-area ensembles using targeted SVs from ECMWF

Limited-area ensembles using targeted SVs from ECMWF. Inger-Lise Frogner Norwegian Meteorological Institute. Topics. Experiments using targeted SVs for perturbing HIRLAM (QJRMS (2002) 128 , pp 1321-1341) Targeted vs. not targeted perturbations Two case studies Summary/Plans.

kylynn-madden
Download Presentation

Limited-area ensembles using targeted SVs from ECMWF

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. Limited-area ensembles using targeted SVs from ECMWF Inger-Lise Frogner Norwegian Meteorological Institute

  2. Topics • Experiments using targeted SVs for perturbing HIRLAM (QJRMS (2002) 128, pp 1321-1341) • Targeted vs. not targeted perturbations • Two case studies • Summary/Plans

  3. Verification area Target area SVs Integration area HIRLAM

  4. SET-UP LAMTEPS • LAMTEPS - Limited Area Model Targeted Ensemble Prediction System • HIRLAM perturbed with targeted EPS from ECMWF (TEPS) • 48h optimization interval for TSVs. • HIRLAM analyses used • Two different approaches: • Perturbed ini. and boundary conditions (PB) • Perturbed only initial conditions (NP) • Test periods in June and Feb. 1997 • 28 km, 31 levels, 20+1 ensemble members

  5. Comparison of TEPS and operational EPS

  6. Thin lines: winter Heavy lines: summer

  7. THR = 20mm/24h TOTAL PRECIP. WINTER PERIOD Verification time: 40h TEPS LAMTEPS (PB) Verified against “superobservations”

  8. THR = 30mm/24h TOTAL PRECIP. WINTER PERIOD Verification time: 40h TEPS LAMTEPS (PB)

  9. TEPS LAMTEPS (PB) LAMTEPS (NP) THR = 2m temp. colder than -6K compared to climatology. WINTER

  10. TEPS LAMTEPS (PB) LAMTEPS (NP) THR = 2m temp. colder than -6K compared to climatology. WINTER

  11. TEPS LAMTEPS (PB) LAMTEPS (NP) THR = 2m temp. warmer than 4K compared to climatology. SUMMER

  12. TEPS LAMTEPS (PB) LAMTEPS (NP) THR = 2m temp. warmer than 4K compared to climatology. SUMMER

  13. Targeted vs. not targeted perturbations • Motivation: • TEPS perturbations initially small inside the HIRLAM integration area. • EPS perturbations more uniformly spread around the hemisphere • Two different approaches: • Perturbing using TEPS -> LAMTEPS • Perturbing using “operational” EPS -> LAMEPS • Test period in September 1999 (23 – 30) • Lateral boundary conditions perturbed

  14. EPS TEPS LAMEPS LAMTEPS THR = 15mm/24h TOTAL PRECIPITATION Verification time: 66h Autumn

  15. EPS TEPS LAMEPS LAMTEPS THR = 15mm/24h TOTAL PRECIPITATION Verification time: 90h Autumn

  16. Two case studies from Sept. 1999 with heavy precipitation • Case 1: 42 hours forecast from 30 September 1999 • Case 2: 42 hours forecast from 25 September 1999 • “super-observations” representative of the HIRLAM grid constructed (Ghelli and Lalaurette, 2000) • Kriging method used to obtain estimated area precipitation from point observations

  17. Case 1: 24h accumulated precipitation, valid at 2 October 1999 Analysis HIRLAM 50km (MSLP) L

  18. Observed 24h accumulated precipitation

More Related