1 / 16

Critical issues of ensemble data assimilation in application to GOES-R risk reduction program

Critical issues of ensemble data assimilation in application to GOES-R risk reduction program D. Zupanski 1 , M. Zupanski 1 , M. DeMaria 2 , and L. Grasso 1 1 CIRA/Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2 NOAA/NESDIS Fort Collins, CO

clancy
Télécharger la présentation

Critical issues of ensemble data assimilation in application to GOES-R risk reduction program

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. Critical issues of ensemble data assimilation in application to GOES-R risk reduction program D. Zupanski1, M. Zupanski1, M. DeMaria2, and L. Grasso1 1CIRA/Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2NOAA/NESDIS Fort Collins, CO Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface (IOAS-AOLS) 9-13 January 2005 San Diego, CA Research partially supported by NOAA Grant NA17RJ1228 Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  2. OUTLINE • Critical data assimilation issues related to GOES-R satellite mission • Ensemble based data assimilation methodology: Maximum Likelihood Ensemble Filter • Experimental results • Conclusions and future work Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  3. Critical data assimilation issues of GOES-R and similar missions • Assimilate satellite observations with high special and temporal resolution • Employ state-of-the-art non-linear atmospheric models (without neglecting model errors) • Provide optimal estimate of the atmospheric state • Calculate uncertainty of the optimal estimate • Determine amount of new information given by the observations What is the value added of having new observations (e.g., GOES-R, CloudSat, GPM) ? Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  4. METHODOLOGY • Maximum Likelihood Ensemble Filter (MLEF) • (Zupanski 2005; Zupanski and Zupanski 2005) • Developed using ideas from • Variational data assimilation(3DVAR, 4DVAR) • Iterated Kalman Filters • Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (ETKF, Bishop et al. 2001) MLEF is designed to provide optimal estimates of • model state variables • empirical parameters • model error (bias) MLEF also calculates uncertainties of all estimates (in terms of Pa and Pf) Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  5. MLEF APPROACH Minimize cost function J Analysis error covariance Forecast error covariance - model state vector of dim Nstate >>Nens - non-linear forecast model - information matrix of dim Nens  Nens Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  6. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN • Hurricane Lili case • 35 1-h DA cycles: 13UTC 1 Oct 2002 – 00 UTC 3 Oct • CSU-RAMS non-hydrostatic model • 30x20x21 grid points, 15 km grid distance (in the Gulf of Mexico) • Control variable: u,v,w,theta,Exner, r_total (dim=54000) • Model simulated observations with random noise (7200 obs per DA cycle) • Nens=50 • Iterative minimization of J (1 iteration only) Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  7. 21 UTC 2 Oct 2002 Cycle 33 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 35 14 UTC 00 UTC 1 Oct 2002 2 Oct 2002 3 Oct 2002 Experimental design (continued) 13 UTC Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  8. Sub-cycles 1-4 Sub-cycles 5-8 Sub-cycles 9-12 Sub-cycles 13-16 Sub-cycles 17-20 Sub-cycles 21-24 1200 u obs 1200 v obs 1200 r_total obs 1200 w obs 1200 Exner obs 1200 theta obs Experimental design (continued) • Split cycle 33 into 24 sub-cycles • Calculate eigenvalues of (I+C) -1/2 in each sub-cycle (information content) Information content of each group of observations Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  9. RESULTS Sub-cycles 1-4 u- obs groups System is “learning” about the truth via updating analysis error covariance. Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  10. RESULTS Sub-cycles 5-8 v- obs groups Most information in sub-cycles 5 and 6. Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  11. RESULTS Sub-cycles 9-12 w- obs groups Most information in sub-cycle 10. Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  12. RESULTS Sub-cycles 13-16 Exner- obs groups Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  13. RESULTS Sub-cycles 17-20 theta- obs groups Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  14. RESULTS Sub-cycles 21-24 theta- obs groups Sub-cycles with little information can be excluded  data selection. Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  15. CONCLUSIONS • Ensemble based data assimilation methods, such as the MLEF, can be effectively used to quantify impact of each observation type. • The procedure is applicable to a forecast model of any complexity. Only eigenvalues of a small size matrix (Nens x Nens) need to be evaluated. • Data assimilation system has a capability to learn form observations. Value added of having new observations (e.g., GOES-R, CloudSat, GPM) can be quantified applying a similar procedure. Dusanka Zupanski, CIRA/CSU Zupanski@CIRA.colostate.edu

  16. References Zupanski, M., 2005: The Maximum Likelihood Ensemble Filter. Theoretical aspects. Accepted in Mon. Wea. Rev. [Available at ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/milija/papers/MLEF_MWR.pdf] Zupanski, D., and M. Zupanski, 2005: Model error estimation employing ensemble data assimilation approach. Submitted to Mon. Wea. Rev. [Available at ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/Zupanski/manuscripts/MLEF_model_err.revised2.pdf]

More Related