1 / 50

RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006

RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006. RC LACE Evaluation. RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006. Presentation of the RC LACE Evaluation Report. Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski

radha
Download Presentation

RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006

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. RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006 RC LACE Evaluation OMSZ, Budapest

  2. RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006 Presentation of the RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski OMSZ, Budapest, 08 November 2006 OMSZ, Budapest

  3. RC LACE Evaluation Report Peter Lynch and Detlev Majewski 15 May 2006 Outline of Presentation • Introduction • Brief History of RC LACE • The Current Situation • [ Break ] • Future Options • Task Sharing • Recommendations. OMSZ, Budapest

  4. Background • NWP essential for operational weather forecasting. • Maintenance and development of NWP systems beyond the capacity of most small NMSs. • Therefore: Strong incentive to cooperate. • The LACE Council decided on an evaluation of the RC LACE Project. • Purpose: to assist in planning for the coming decade. • Terms of Reference were drawn up. OMSZ, Budapest

  5. Activities of the Evaluators (pg 36) • Consultations at RC LACE Centres: • Directorate • Local NWP teams • Technical and forecasting staff • Internal NWP users. • Participated in meetings of: • LACE Council • LACE Steering Committee • Management Group • Vision Meeting at ECMWF. • Extensive analysis of relevant documentation. • Discussion of intermediate Evaluation Report. OMSZ, Budapest

  6. Short History of LACE(pp 5-7) • Political changes in Europe in 1980s. • Opportunities for co-operation in the • Central European area. • Meeting in Vienna (1990) to consider a Regional Centre for limited-area modelling. • This was the embryo of RC LACE • LACE Project established within a year. OMSZ, Budapest

  7. The French Connection • The French Government provided financial support to foster closer links. • Météo-France offered a limited-area version of the ARPEGE model for operational use. • This proposal included strong training and research components. • The LAM-ARPEGE Project started in Toulouse in September 1991. • Shortly it became ALADIN. OMSZ, Budapest

  8. ALADIN provided an ideal basis for LACE. • Several LACE scientists work in Toulouse. • Nov. 1994: Co-operation framework agreement between RC LACE and Météo-France. • Spring 1996: RC LACE Management Group established. Leader: Miroslav Ondráš . • Plan A: Operational Regional Centre in Vienna. • Later political changes in Austria prevented the establishment of the Regional Centre there. OMSZ, Budapest

  9. The Prague Phase • 1997: CHMI acquire NEC computer. • ALADIN ported to this system. • March, 1998: First RC LACE MoU. Establishment of Regional Centre in Prague. • June, 1998: ALADIN/LACE operations transferred to Prague. • Scientists from all the participating institutes working at CHMI in Prague. OMSZ, Budapest

  10. Boundary conditions dispatched from • Toulouse on a regular basis. • Prague Centre was back-up centre for the • reference ALADIN system software. • ALADIN system was also run in operational • mode in the other centres: • Slovenia (1997), • Hungary (1998), • Austria (1999), • Slovakia (1999), • Croatia (2000). • Each centre used combination of NWP guidance • from the Prague Centre and local ALADIN. OMSZ, Budapest

  11. Centralized organization had many attractions … • Concentrated research effort very effective. • Common operational system maintained and • developed with considerable efficiency. • … but also significant tensions … • Increasingly difficult to fulfill NWP requirements • of all the participating institutes. • Scientists reluctant to spend long periods • away from their home institutes. • Transfer of substantial financial resources • away from the national institutes. OMSZ, Budapest

  12. The Current LACE Project(pp 7-8) • Second RC LACE MoU signed in Oct. 2002. • Decentralized phase began in January, 2003. • RC LACE now Regional Co-operation LACE. • MoU has been extended until the end of 2007. • Each RC LACE Member responsible for its • own operational NWP system. • Scientific R&D coordinated within the project. OMSZ, Budapest

  13. Structure of the Project • Policy of Project determined by LACE Council • (Directors of Member Institutes). • LACE Steering Committee (LSC) is advisory • body for Project. • The Project Leader is Dijana Klarić (Croatia). • The Management Group (MG): • Project Leader (PL) • ALADIN-LACE System Coordinator (ASC) • Data Manager (DM) • Working Group Leaders (WGLs). OMSZ, Budapest

  14. Working Groups • Dynamics and Coupling • Physical Parameterization • Data Assimilation. • EPS and Predictability • Management Group appointments • are reviewed annually. OMSZ, Budapest

  15. The ALADIN Project • RC LACE first group to officially join • the ALADIN-2 Project (Jan, 2004). • Intensive discussions on roadmap • for ALADIN-2 and AROME. • The AROME Project was started in 2000 • at Météo-France. • Goal: high resolution model for nowcasting • and very short range forecasting. OMSZ, Budapest

  16. AROME • Combines parts of ALADIN and Meso-NH. • Designed for resolution of c. 2 km. • Interest within RC LACE for operational • application of AROME. • A framework for the transition: ALARO, • similar to ALADIN with refined physics. • LACE scientists are already active in • Aladin/Hirlam collaboration (HARMONIE). OMSZ, Budapest

  17. The European Context(pp 8-9) • Europe a world leader in operational meteorology. • RC LACE Members (5) in EU. • RC LACE Members (5) “in” ECMWF. • Possible EU move on centralization • of operational meteorology … (?) • Closer collaboration among NMSs • is essential. • EUMETNET a framework for collaboration. • EUMET: All LACE members involved. • WMO –Region VI. • SRNWP: to be re-tasked / empowered. OMSZ, Budapest

  18. ECMWF • World-leading forecast centre. • Feb, 2006: Spatial resolution 25 km. • Grid resolution of 10 km by 2015. • RC LACE must aim for about 2 km • on that time-scale. OMSZ, Budapest

  19. RC LACE Strengths (pp 9-12) • Proven modelling expertise (Annex III) • RC LACE and ALADIN. • Relationship with Météo-France. • Local operational ALADIN systems. • Local NWP knowledge. • Local applications. • Budgetary control. • Flexibility and Adaptability. OMSZ, Budapest

  20. RC LACE Weaknesses(pp 12-15) • Manpower in NWP. • Duplication of effort. • Lack of identity, visibility. • Internal communication. • Complexity of the scientific planning process. • Need to cover all NWP. • Coordination of plans. • Management structure. • Quality of operational NWP systems. OMSZ, Budapest

  21. Break OMSZ, Budapest

  22. External Factors affecting LACE(pp 15-18) • Activities of major NWP centres. • User demands in LACE countries. • Role of private service providers. • NWP in universities. • Government regulations. • Developments in IT and communications. OMSZ, Budapest

  23. Other operational NWP systems in Europe that compete with LACE • North-Atlantic Europe model (NAE) of UKMO • (grid spacing 12 km; 8 km in 2009). • Local model Europe (LME) of DWD • (grid spacing 7 km). • Local model LMK (LM-Kürzestfrist) of DWD • (grid spacing 2.8 km). • University of Basel: NOAA-NCEP (NMM) model • (grid spacing 13 and 2 km). OMSZ, Budapest

  24. Domains of the NAE (12 km/ 8 km) and UK regional forecast systems OMSZ, Budapest

  25. Domain of the LME (7 km) of the Deutscher Wetterdienst Global model GME grid spacing: 40 km number of layers: 40 forecast range: 174 h from 00 and 12 UTC 48 h from 06 and 18 UTC grid cell area: 1384 km2 Local model LME grid spacing : 7 km number of layers: 40 forecast range: 78 h from 00 and 12 UTC 48 h from 06 and 18 UTC grid cell area: 49 km2 OMSZ, Budapest

  26. LMK-Configuration Domain of the LMK (2.8 km) of the Deutscher Wetterdienst Model domain of LMK • grid length: Δx = 2.8 km • direct simulation of coarser parts of deep convection • interactions with fine scale topography • use of radar data for initialization • improved numerical schemes • 50 layers in the vertical, lowest layer in 10 m above ground • center of the domain 10° E, 50° N • 421 x 461 grid points • boundary values from LME (x = 7 km) • pre-operational phase starting July 2006 OMSZ, Budapest

  27. LMK forecasts without (centre) and with (right) usage of radar data during the assimilation; radar observation (left) OMSZ, Budapest

  28. 18 06 0.2 mm/h 06 18 2.0 mm/h LMK-forecasts – ETS for hourly precipitation (thresholds 0.2 mm/h and 2.0 mm/h) Averaged over 80 forecasts (23 days: 0, [6,] 12, 18 UTC) OMSZ, Budapest

  29. NMM with grid spacing 13 km NMM with grid spacing 2 km University of Basel: Meteoblue http://pages.unibas.ch/geo/mcr/3d/meteo/ OMSZ, Budapest

  30. How LACE can respond to the NWP competition in Europe • Provide better NWP quality, e.g. data assimilation. • Provide higher reliability, e.g. hardware. • Provide better price/performance ratio. • Provide better customer service, e.g. documentation in local language. • Provide more flexibility, e.g. product generation. • Provide tailored products for customers, e.g. hydrology. OMSZ, Budapest

  31. Strategic NWP goals (pp 18-22) • Convective scale NWP (AROME). • Intermediate-scale (~5km) model (ALARO). • Local data assimilation. • Lateral boundary conditions. • Regional ensemble prediction system. • Increased automation of forecast process. • Scientific scope of programme. • Interaction with other NWP consortia. OMSZ, Budapest

  32. Task-sharing in RC LACE (pp 23-24) • Balanced, voluntary contributions. • Agreement on Lead Centres for specific areas. • Efficient use of the scarce manpower available. • Specialisation of the NWP teams. • Ability of smaller NWP groups to provide their centres with a complete NWP system. OMSZ, Budapest

  33. Some Options for Task-sharing(pp24-28) 1. Common Observation Data Base (ODB) 2. Monitoring of observations, based on ODB 3. Flexible verification tool based on ODB 4. Data assimilation for intermediate NWP model 5. Detailed analysis of surface/soil parameters 6. Development and integration of intermediate NWP model 7. Preparation of a radar data composite 8. Nowcasting system based on ALARO/AROME and INCA 9. Ensemble Prediction System (EPS) 10. Standardized key post processing tools. OMSZ, Budapest

  34. Common Observation Data Base (pg 24) • The Observation Data Base (ODB) is a database • software system developed at ECMWF. • We propose a common centralised operational • ODB for all LACE centres. • It should be maintained at two different centres • which will work as mutual backup. • The common ODB, should store all GTS and local • data from all LACE centres in the ODB. • All other LACE centres can retrieve the • observations from the ODB. • Strict protection measures will be necessary. OMSZ, Budapest

  35. Monitoring of data based on ODB(pg 25) • Total counts of all observation types. • Observation distribution maps for each • analysis cycle. • Rejected observation distribution maps for • each cycle. • Vertical profiles of observation fit to first guess, • and analysis for each analysis cycle. • Monthly maps of radiosonde - first guess biases. • Vertical profiles of monthly mean and std of • radiosonde biases, for bias-corrected areas. • Monthly maps of mean and root-mean-square • errors of drifting buoys. OMSZ, Budapest

  36. 3. Flexible verification based on ODB(pp26-27) • Verification tool for LACE models, other regional • models and the ECMWF model. • Scheme designed and coded in Slovenia may • serve as nucleus of the new system. • Comparison of the quality of the models highlights • strengths and weaknesses of the NWP systems. • The centre responsible for verification should • produce a quarterly verification report. OMSZ, Budapest

  37. 4. Centralized Data Assimilation(pg 27) • The LACE centres will need a common regional • model (grid ~5 km ALARO). • This will provide the lateral boundary conditions • of their meso-gamma scale AROME model. • The data assimilation for this model should be • performed in one LACE centre. • The analysis should then be distributed to all • LACE centres. • The analysis of the intermediate NWP model • should have higher quality. OMSZ, Budapest

  38. 5. Analysis of surface/soil parameters (pg 27) • For Central Europe, high-resolution analysis of • surface and soil parameters is important. • Reliance on interpolated ARPEGE analysis for • the surface and soil fields is not adequate. • LACE should develop its own capability for • high-resolution surface analysis. • The expertise of the HIRLAM consortium should • be exploited. OMSZ, Budapest

  39. 6. Development and integration of the • intermediate model (pg 27) • Centralised integration of the intermediate NWP • model (grid spacing ~5 km) is possible. • This will provide coupling files for LACE centres • running convection-scale AROME model. • This intermediate model must include data • assimilation, including surface variables. • The intermediate model may be driven by lateral • boundary data from ARPEGE or ECMWF. OMSZ, Budapest

  40. 7. Preparation of radar data composite(p27-28) • The convection-scale model AROME will assimilate • radar data. • The operational production of composite radar • data of all the LACE countries is important. • A number of scientific and technical problems • must be solved. • Expertise of other NWP consortia (HIRLAM, • COSMO, UKMO) using radar should be used. OMSZ, Budapest

  41. 8. Nowcasting with INCA System(pg 28) • INCA should be interfaced to the common ODB • using local LACE data and ALARO forecasts. • A centralized INCA run with domain covering all • LACE countries should be considered. • A local version of INCA, based on AROME • forecasts, may also be developed. OMSZ, Budapest

  42. 9. Ensemble Prediction System(pg 29) • The combined computer power available at the • LACE centres should be used to run an EPS. • Distributed computation of the EPS members • and centralized evaluation/product generation. • There are several scientific problems to be solved. • Expertise of other NWP consortia running • regional EPS should be used; • EUMETNET SRNWP optional project? OMSZ, Budapest

  43. 10. Post-processing tools(pp 28-29) • LACE scientists must work on a variety of • downstream developments. • To avoid duplication, standardised and portable • post-processing tools should be developed. • Since tools like Kalman Filter or MOS require • observational data, the common ODB data • base should be used. OMSZ, Budapest

  44. Sketch of a possible configuration of “Lead Centres”(pg 30) • Common ODB / Data Assimilation (Res. + Ops.) • 2. Nowcasting system / EPS (Res. + Ops.) • 3. Dynamics & Intermediate NWP model (Res. + Ops.) • 4. Post processing /Surface Analysis (Res.) • 5. Radar data composite (Res.) • 6. Verification (Res.) OMSZ, Budapest

  45. Recommendations (pp 29-34) • 1. Priority tasks for near future • Common verification • Data assimilation • Evaluate ECMWF forecasts as LBC data • Post-processing • Focus on ALADIN, ALARO, AROME. OMSZ, Budapest

  46. 2. Strategy and Planning (pg 31) • Council should adopt a general 10-year strategy • of RC LACE, updated every five years. • LSC should formulate a detailed 2-year plan, • updated annually. • Survey of user requirements. • LSC should co-ordinate and harmonize • user requirements. OMSZ, Budapest

  47. 3. Management Structure(pp 31-32) • Council • Twice-yearly Council meetings. • Reduce amount of papers for the meeting. • Material dispatched in timely fashion. • Short summary documents. • Appointment of new management staff. • LACE Steering Committee (LSC) • Receive papers two weeks before meeting. • Reduce time spend on technical issues. • Increase time for strategic issues. • Highlight training needs and co-ordinate training. OMSZ, Budapest

  48. Project Leader (pg 32) • Position should be full-time (or at least 80%). • Improve international visibility of RC LACE. • Pro-active in putting RC LACE objectives on • international agenda. • Act as RC LACE representative at key • meetings and conferences. • Management Group(pp 32-33) • Core Group (80%) for long-term research tasks. • The WG Leaders need formal control of scientists. • Improve flow of information between WGs. • ASC and DM should be a half-time positions. • Terms of Reference for ASC and DM separated. • Longer time-scale for management appointments. OMSZ, Budapest

  49. 4. Internal & External Communications(pp 33-34) • A recurring theme: lack of recognition of • RC LACE outside the ALADIN Community. • WWW as repository for documentation. • Visual Image of RC LACE. • Communications with other NWP Consortia. • Management Group should explicitly consider • possibilities for collaboration with other groups • when defining scientific plans for RC LACE. OMSZ, Budapest

  50. Thank you OMSZ, Budapest

More Related