1 / 89

Hurricane Executive Oversight Board HFIP Status Review

Hurricane Executive Oversight Board HFIP Status Review. Fred Toepfer HFIP Project Manager December 9, 2010. Version 12/07/10. Project Managers Perspective Key Takeaways. HFIP is making significant progress toward meetings it’s 5 year performance goals. Both track and intensity

sawyer
Download Presentation

Hurricane Executive Oversight Board HFIP Status Review

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. Hurricane Executive Oversight BoardHFIP Status Review Fred Toepfer HFIP Project Manager December 9, 2010 Version 12/07/10

  2. Project Managers PerspectiveKey Takeaways • HFIP is making significant progress toward meetings it’s 5 year performance goals. • Both track and intensity • Radar data with EnKF appears to be essential for intensity forecastsusing high-resolution (<3 km) regional models • Initialization for first 24 hours still a problem • EnKF data assimilation is giving excellent results in the tropics for hurricane track • NCEP is on track to implement operationally – Hybrid Data Assimilation System • The HFIP experimental computer (t-jet) has been central to the efforts toward achieving the HFIP track and intensity goals. • 2003 Solomon’s Island Agreement was instrumental in making this possible • Partnership between operational and research community is growing – will see benefit in an accelerating improvement in HWRF

  3. Outline • Purpose of Briefing • FY2010 Status • FY2011 Plans • Transition to Operations • High Performance Computing

  4. Briefing Purpose • Review HFIP Status • FY10 Activities and Accomplishments • FY11 Plans • Get HEOB agreement on Operational Hurricane Model Development Process • Get HEOB agreement on Scientific Review Committee

  5. HFIP Baselines and Goals

  6. FY2010 Activities

  7. Current FY10 Project Office Activity Status

  8. 2010 HFIP Schedule = Original Schedule = Complete = Modified Schedule

  9. FY10 Milestone Summary

  10. FY10 Activities/Results A 20 member GFS (T256~60 km) ensemble using an EnKF DA system showed a 20% improvement over the higher resolution operational GFS using GSI DA at the longer lead times The GFS ensemble appears to be providing good predictions of genesis at lead times of several days. Multi model ensemble ran 2x/day on each storm this season (Oper. HWRF, Oper. GFDL, TC-COAMPS, AHW, FSU ARW, experimental HWRF,and experimental GFDL). Ensemble mean is bias corrected Preliminary results from the Correlation Based Consensus Initial assessment is very good Stream 1.5 “experimental operations” runs being made available to forecasters in real-time (AHW at 1 km and the experimental GFDL at 7.5 km) Demonstrated that HFIP can get experimental results into operations Model results mixed

  11. FY10 Activities / Results (2) • HFIP global model ensemble with EnKF did better at track than any other model in the Atlantic Meets the 5 year HFIP track goals of 20% for CY10 (needs to be demonstrated across multiple seasons) • Several experiments are being conducted on advanced data assimilation (using all available aircraft data) and alternate initialization systems by HRD • PSU EnKF and HRD (HEDAS)regional models: Impact of using the radar data to initialize the model along with the EnKF system was tested • Impact was very impressive • Results indicate that this approach potentially meets HFIP 5 year goal for 20% improvement in intensity out beyond day 1 • This applies to storms accessible by aircraft (probably applies to all storms threatening the coast within 3 days) • Storms further at sea will require use of additional satellite data. • Data is available but not yet incorporated into data assimilation system • Explored at a JCSDA workshop on Dec 2-3.

  12. After initial bias corrected Numbers on top: cases HFIP BASE: dark line 20% reduction from BASE: dark dash line (5 year goal) P400: PSU-EnKF 4.5km ensemble forecast mean, purple line HWRF: cyan line John Gamache (HRD), Fuqing Zhang (PSU)

  13. Note that error ellipse for the global ensemble is considerably smaller than the current error range

  14. Error ellipse similar for all three models

  15. Improved Use of Observations:EnKF of Airborne Doppler Radar 5 missions at 12-h intervals during RI (00Z 28–12Z 30 August) 6 missions at 12-h intervals during mature & ET (00Z 1–00Z 3 September) 11 P-3 Flights 28 August – 3 September 2010 Hurricane Earl Doppler SO (EnKF) transmitted in real-time to HRD for assimilation into HWRFx (HEDAS) and PSU ARW models HWRFx/HEDAS 20100831 00UTC 20100830I1 2126-0229 UTC HWRFX w/ HWRF HWRF (OP) HWRFX w/ HEDAS HWRFx/HEDAS 20100831 00UTC Rob Rogers, John Gamache, Altug Aksoy, Tomi Vukicevic, Gopal (HRD)

  16. Conclusions from 2010 Experiments • We can reach the HFIP track goals out to at least 5 days using current global models initialized with EnKF • Will need to be run at higher than current resolution to ensure continued gains • Radar data appears to be critical in initializing regional models (may require ENKF to use effectively) • May solve the intensity problem for storms near the coast • Need increased use of available satellite data for storms further out • Statistical post processing provides a several percentage point improvement over raw scores (Bias Correction, Correlation Based Correction, other)

  17. FY10 Funding

  18. FY2011 Plans

  19. Strategy to Meet Performance Goals for Global Models • Global models have consistently out-performed regional models on track at all lead times. • Global model ensembles initialized with advanced data assimilation systems (e.g. EnKF) can achieve the track goals • May already have demonstrated the 5 year goals • For intensity global models will only be able to predict environmental controls on intensity. • Resolution prevents accounting for the impact of internal (near the eyewall) processes • Statistical processing (eg: bias correction may allow a three category intensity forecast with the global models: • Tropical storm • Hurricane • Major hurricane

  20. Strategy to Meet Performance Goals for Regional Models • Regional models are the best hope to achieve accurate forecasts of intensity changes forced by processes internal to the hurricane • Eyewall replacement cycles • Fine scale interaction with the ocean • Convective processes • These require high resolution ~ 1-3 km • Major issues with the regional models are initialization and physics. • Use of aircraft data may solve the initialization problem for some storms (particularly storms threatening the coast within 3 days) • HFIP may have demonstrated its 5 year intensity goals for storms nearing landfall

  21. FY11 HFIP Events • HFIP Annual Review Meeting in Miami: November 9-10, 2010 • JCSDA/HFIP Workshop on use of satellite data for hurricane model initialization: December 2-3, 2010 • HFIP Status Meetings (TBD): Monterey, Miami, and Boulder • Fund 3rd year of NOPP agreement • AMS Annual Conference in Seattle: Jan 23-27, 2011 • HFIP Request for Proposal in January 2011 • HFIP support ~ $500K-$1M; 7-10 projects @ 50K-150K/project • Critical to harness talent within external community • 2nd Joint Hurricane Workshop & Tutorial: April 2011 • AHW and HWRF code in WRF repository • Support community regional hurricane modeling R&D and R2O

  22. HFIP Science Priorities • Advancement in DA techniques for hurricane NWP • Physics Advancements • Microphysical processes • Air-sea processes and BL processes • R&D for determining optimal resolution and complexity of coupling • Advanced model diagnostic techniques • Analyses and forecast of large-scale and hurricane environment evolution • Identification and analyses of sources of model errors • Development of high resolution ensembles • Identify resolution and optimality of the number of ensemble members • Improve intensity guidance • Techniques to maximize the usefulness of observations

  23. Development Plan 8/25/2014 25

  24. Funding HFIP Anticipated HFIP Funding for FY11: WCOSS PAC: HFIP HPC: $3.000M OAR Base ~ $6.101M NWS Base ~ $14.040M TOTAL ~$23.141M

  25. Proposal for 2011 HPC Funds • Allocated $0.75M for O&M • Assuming $2.25M available for equipment • 448 tJet nodes (5376 additional cores) • 340 TB additional storage • Specific balance of compute and storage to be determined through requirements balance • These estimates are based on previous pricing, but there is no guarantee we can get that pricing this time. • Power, cooling, and space available • Minimal facilities work needed to install new power connections to equipment • All technologies are available today • Acquisition could start immediately

  26. HFIP Teams

  27. 2011 HFIP Schedule = Original Schedule = Complete = Modified Schedule

  28. FY 11 Project Office Plans

  29. FY11 HFIP T-jet Target System • Global ensemble with EnKF and 20 members • 27 km • EnKF and forecast system at same resolution • GFS or FIM or a mix • Regional models using EnKF and radar data. • HWRF (run by HRD) and deterministic at 3 km—prototype operational system • ARW (run by PSU) as a 30 member ensemble • Other Stream 1.5 and Stream 2.0 models • ARW (NCAR), ARW (FSU), Other?

  30. T-Jet Allocation for Real Time Runs

  31. FY11 AOPPreliminary

  32. FY11 AOP Preliminary (2)

  33. Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Committee Charge The HFIP Scientific Review Committee will work with the HFIP Development Manager and the HFIP Research and Operations Leads to review the scientific direction of HFIP to help insure that it can achieve the four goals mentioned above. The SRC will communicate its findings through the HFIP Research and Operations Lead and the HFIP Development Manager to the HFIP Program Manager and the HFIP Executive Oversight Board (HEOB). • Review and suggest possible changes to annual HFIP plans • Review proceeding year accomplishments • Review the long term HFIP model system development and observing strategy plans • Review the objectives and makeup of the demonstration system each season. Two face-to-face meetings per year, frequent e-mail, telecon exchanges Cost: $9000/year—travel for university types

  34. SRC Membership Name Organization Area of Expertise Term of Service Mike Montgomery NPS TC dynamics 4 years Dalin Zhang Maryland TC regional models 4 years Gary Barnes UH/Manoa TC structure 3 years Jim Price Woods Hole Coupled models 3 years John Molinari SUNYA TC environment interaction 2 years Jim Goerss NRL Monterey Global models/ensembles 2 years

  35. Transition to Operations

  36. Stream 1.0 Management (HWRF) • Reasons to change HWRF Management • We want more emphasis on improving the operational model. • We want the operational model development to be managed by a committee made up of members of the organizations contributing directly to the development • Management Structure will be referred to as • Operational Hurricane Regional Model Development/Implementation (OHMD) • Changes will apply only to Stream 1. Stream 2.0 will be managed by the teams and Stream 1.5 by NHC/DTC/TCMT • Committee will consist of members from: • EMC, AOML, GFDL, DTC, NRL, NHC, NCAR/MMM, JCSDA, plus 2 university representatives • EMC and AOML have established a strong partnership in HWRF development • Committee is responsible for setting priorities and monitoring the development process and progress • A Central Repository similar to WRF will be maintained by the DTC • Both research and operational codes will be drawn from the repository • Final configuration of the operational system will remain unchanged but will use extensive input from the OHMD process Focus development on T2O through HWRF Repository at DTC

  37. Hybrid Data Assimilation and Ensemble Forecast System (HEVDAS) Current Status • GSI code upgraded for hybrid – all coding complete • Executes at operational resolution (27km) EnKF upgrade planned Q4FY11 • Preliminary runs in progress Next Steps • Improved NCEP global system (data assimilation and ensemble systems) • Ensemble forecast (1-15 days) generation • Use HEVDAS perturbations as starting point for ensemble forecast • Optimize perturbations for ensemble (1-15 day) forecast • Improve turnaround on NOAA T-jet • Dedicated resources for continuous runs • Hybrid • High res (T574) forecast • Ensemble (T254) forecast • Resource assessment for operational implementation • Generate hybrid data assimilation ensemble from “GDAS” cycle Implementation possible no earlier than spring 2012 May need to wait until procurement of new system (2014)

  38. Target Operational Prediction System for 2014 • 20-40 member ensembles: 15 km global and 3 km regional resolution • two global model cores/physics (FIM?,NMM?) • three regional model cores/physics (HWRF, AHW, COAMPS-TC?) • Statistical post processing of both track and intensity from a 20 year reforecast from the various models. Rerun each year • At least one member of each model in the ensembles will be computed using a full 3D ocean. Others may used parameterized ocean coupling • Both global and regional models will use a 4DVAR/Ensemble hybrid system • Regional models will use all available satellite and aircraft derived data for inner core initialization – Ensemble and model products that maximize value to forecasters will be emphasized

  39. HFIP Computing

  40. HFIP System - tJet

  41. HFIP Configuration • Combining HFIP with additional 3112 cores from other projects • - Measured Linpack result is 126.5 Tflops • - This puts it as 50th on the November 2010 Top 500 list • Current system is 10128 cores on tJet and 472 cores on nJet • - Sharing of infrastructure and resources allowed for a bigger • single system (tjet) • * Estimates based on anticipated FY11 Funds

  42. Relative Performance • Relative Performance – Comparison to 1024 core WRF job • Similar computationally to HWRF and other atmospheric codes • Workload Comparison – How many cores it would take to match the performance of the HFIP system • Power Consumption – Power necessary for the comparative system

  43. Takeaways for HFIP System • Current HFIP provides 66% of NOAA’s new climate machine, Gaea, at Oak Ridge • The HFIP system is the largest system at a NOAA managed site

  44. HFIP Systems Management • Team Environment • HPC Lead – Dr. Craig Tierney • NOAA Staff and Affiliates • Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) – Onsite contractor • Several systems owners leverage shared staff for cost effective computing • NOAA’s R&D HPCS program • FAA • Support for scheduling real-time and research runs simultaneously provide through novel approach using the Moab Scheduler • Distributed Support Structure provides flexibility for user and system support • All help tickets funneled through single help mail address.

  45. GSD RDHPCS FacilitiesGarden Level Floor Diagram

  46. Backup Slides

  47. HFIP FY10 Milestones

More Related