1 / 12

The Impact of Data Assimilation on a Mesoscale Model of the New Zealand Region (NZLAM-VAR)

The Impact of Data Assimilation on a Mesoscale Model of the New Zealand Region (NZLAM-VAR). P. Andrews, H. Oliver, M. Uddstrom , A. Korpela X. Zheng and V. Sherlock National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Wellington, New Zealand. Outline.

ormand
Download Presentation

The Impact of Data Assimilation on a Mesoscale Model of the New Zealand Region (NZLAM-VAR)

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. The Impact of Data Assimilation on a Mesoscale Model of the New Zealand Region(NZLAM-VAR) P. Andrews, H. Oliver, M. Uddstrom, A. Korpela X. Zheng and V. Sherlock National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Wellington, New Zealand

  2. Outline • The NZ mesoscale weather prediction system (NZLAM-VAR): • Mesoscale & Global components • Data • Initial results: • Global • NZLAM (nodata assimilation) • NZLAM-VAR • Compared with AMSU-B • Forecast error covariance • Summary, issues & future directions

  3. Mesoscale Prediction System: NZLAM-VAR • Using Met Office Unified Model • NIWA implementation • Met Office Data (initially) • Mesoscale Component • UM: 324  324  38 ( 12 km) • 3DVar and IAU • High resolution data (direct readout) • Cycling: 3 hourly • 2  48 h forecasts / day • Verification (VER) • Global Component • Lateral Boundary Conditions • UM: 432  325  30 ( 60 km)

  4. Data Types: Dec 1999 – Feb 2000 • Conventional (from NZMetS) • Rawinsondes • Ships • Buoys • SYNOPS • AMDAR • Satellite (NIWA) • Winds • SSM/I • Hourly CMV (GMS) • SST (14 day mean) • HIRS (NOAA14 & 15) • AMSU-A (NOAA15)

  5. Example NZLAM-VAR Increments • We want to use data at high spatial resolution, but • High resolution (probably)  “noisey” analyses…

  6. NZLAM UM Global NZLAM-VAR AMSU 23.8GHz AMSU 150GHz NZLAM-VAR AMSU 89GHz Total Water Forecast (725 hPa, 36 h Prediction) • GMSIR,1800 Z, 17 Dec 99 • QT Validity time: 1800 Z • UM Global Model • NZLAM, no DA • NZLAM-VAR • AMSU: 2010 Z • Ch 1 23.8 GHz • Ch 16 89 Ghz • Ch 17 150 GHz • NZLAM-VAR appears to “verify” well… • Model and Data contain high spatial structure • Rain signal:- • Absorption at 89 Ghz • Scattering at 150 GHz

  7. Microphysics: Cloud Predictions NZLAM-VAR 12 hour forecast: low, low + mid, low + mid + high “Verifying” GMS 11m image for 16 Dec 1999, 1640 UTC

  8. Global UM Verifying Analysis NZLAM-VAR MSLP Forecasts (12 hour) – Significant Weather • mslp • NZLAM-VAR verification better

  9.  Unrotated RH Unrotated Rotated Rotated Forecast Errors: Vertical Modes • NMC Method • 112 forecast pairs (6 & 12 h) • 1 month (Feb 2000) • EOF decomposition of vertical errors • Analysis variables • Stream function () • Velocity potential () • Unballanced pressure (Ap) • Relative humidity () • Varimax rotation of EOFs • Simpler vertical structure • Useful physical interpretation?

  10. 230 hPa 300 hPa 970 hPa 900 hPa Forecast Errors: Horizontal Scales • Correlation length scales to r = 0.29 • Stream function (): • SOAR best fit • Similar length scales in the troposphere  290  340 km • RH: • Not Gaussian or SOAR? • 85% of variance above 850 hPa • Length scales  50  80 • High density AMSU-B should help…

  11. Summary • Thanks to the Met Office • Utilising the UM – a complete mesoscale prediction system “test bed” has been implemented:- • Large (synoptic scale) maritime domain • High resolution model (spatial & boundary layer) • 3DVar (including HIRS & AMSU-A) • 3 hour assimilation cycle ( 2  48h forecasts / day) • LBCs from compatible UMglobal model • Objective verification • High resolution local data sources • Current emphasis: OSIS • Initial results verify quite well (subjectively) • Forecast error covariance statistics re-evaluated • Need rotated EOF characterisation • For RH analysis need AMSU-B data at high density • High analysis resolution = noisey increment fields?

  12. Issues & Future Research • The “verification problem” • How, and what? • Conventional methods as well as QPF:- • Global • NZLAM (no DA) • NZLAM-VAR • Hydrological model • The “data density” problem (i.e. contaminant detection at high spatial resolution) • AMSU A/B rain, ice & beam filling: NACA data fusion • HIRS cloud: AVHRR (SRTex cloud mask, SST, AMSU) data fusion • Forcast error covariance characterisation • RTM error characterisation (bias correction) • OSIS • Conventional, SST, HIRS, AMSU, … AIRS

More Related