1 / 50

Putting a Vortex in Its Place

Putting a Vortex in Its Place. Chris Snyder National Center for Atmospheric Research. Introduction. Data assimilation spanning a range of scales is difficult---a central unsolved problem in assimilation/state estimation Hurricanes are an obvious example Large-scale “ steering ” flow

brynne-fernandez
Télécharger la présentation

Putting a Vortex in Its Place

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. Putting a Vortex in Its Place Chris Snyder National Center for Atmospheric Research

  2. Introduction • Data assimilation spanning a range of scales is difficult---a central unsolved problem in assimilation/state estimation • Hurricanes are an obvious example • Large-scale “steering” flow • Axisymmetric vortex • Asymmetric structure; rain bands • Convective elements, eye-wall details, …

  3. Introduction Importance of remotely sensed observations • Indirect; instrument does not measure model variables • Patchy in time and space • Also special, in-situ observations • Reconaissance flights provide position and intensity of vortex

  4. Themes • Initializing forecast/simulation model with vortex in correct location • Two scales: “environment” and vortex • Monte-Carlo (ensemble) methods for DA

  5. Bogussing • ICs for hurricane forecasts often involve some form of bogussing • A simple, empirical approach to intializing hurricane vortex • Obs of intensity, size of vortex (e.g. from reconnaisance flights) • Use these to determine parameters in analytic, axisymmetric model of vortex … a “bogus” vortex • Information from bogus vortex inserted into ICs at observed location of vortex • Operational (NHC/GFDL) scheme • Remove existing vortex from ICs • Spin up vortex in an axisymmetric model, constraining low-level winds to match those from specified bogus vortex • Add axisymmetric vortex to ICs at observed location

  6. A Simple 2D “Hurricane” Experiment • 2D (barotropic) vorticity dynamics • (2400 km)2, doubly periodic domain • Strong vortex (80-km radius) embedded in large-scale turbulent flow • Construct 31 ICs with small disp.s of vortex and small diff.s in large scale •  30 ensemble members + 1 “true”/reference state 10-4 s-1

  7. A Simple 2D Experiment (cont) t=24h 91 km 127 km

  8. Position Errors in Hurricane Data Assimilation • Errors in large scales produce wind errors local to vortex, and thus position/track errors • Vortex intensity and structure also influence track and can lead to position errors • Resulting difficulties for data assimilation: • Influence of obs depends strongly on presence, location of vortex • Even small displacements of vortex imply non-Gaussian pdfs • Most practical DA schemes assume Gaussian prior with stationary, isotropic covariances

  9. PARTICLE FILTER 1

  10. PARTICLE FILTER 2

  11. PARTICLE FILTER 3

  12. PARTICLE FILTER 3

  13. Other Non-Gaussian Assimilation Schemes • 4D variational methods • Assume Gaussian prior and observation errors • Compute maximum likelihood estimate given obs in time interval • Nonlinear minimization in many variables • Methods based on “alignment” or “distortion” • Assume prior is known function of uncertain spatial coords • E.g. suppose  = (x + x, y + y), with x, y Gaussian • Lawson and Hansen (2004), Ravela et al. (2007)

  14. Assimilation of Position Observations • Wish to avoid difficulties associated with large position errors • Geostationary satellites provide vortex position almost continuously in time • Assimilating such obs should limit position errors in analysis http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/archive/montage/atlantic/2004/IVAN-track.gif

  15. Details of Position Assimilation • Need operator that returns vortex position given model fields, e.g., location of minimum surface pressure • For small, Gaussian displacements, errors are Gaussian with covariances related to gradient of original field • (x + x, y + y) - (x, y)    (x, y) • If position obs are accurate and frequent, can assimilate with a linear scheme

  16. Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) • Estimates/models of forecast and obs. pdfs are crucial to DA. • EnKF uses sample (ensemble) estimates • EnKF considers only 1st, 2nd moments---linear scheme

  17. EnKF Analysis Equations • Assimilate obs serially (one at a time) • Given single obs y, any state variable x is updated via • xa = xf + k ( y - yf ), • where • yf = Hxf, • k = cov( xf, yf ) / ( var(yf ) + 2). • Both cov( xf, yf ) and var(yf ) are sample (ensemble) estimates • Loop over state variables, loop over observations • For large ensembles, converges to KF (or BLUE) • No adjoint or minimization algorithm required.

  18. 2D Experiment Revisited • 2D (barotropic) vorticity dynamics • (2400 km)2, doubly periodic domain • Strong vortex (80-km radius) embedded in large-scale turbulent flow • Construct 31 ICs with small disp.s of vortex and small diff.s in large scale •  30 ensemble members + 1 “true”/reference state • Simulate obs of vortex position with random error • Assimilate 1-hourly obs with EnKF • Chen, Y. and C. Snyder, 2007: Assimilating vortex position with an ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Wea. Rev., in press. 10-4 s-1

  19. 2D Experiment Revisited With assimilation Without assimilation t=24h 91 km 127 km Have also explored assimilation of intensity and shape of vortex

  20. Experiments with WRF/DART • WRF -- Weather Research and Forecasting model • DART -- Data Assimilation Research Testbed: • http://www.image.ucar.edu/DAReS/DART/ • 36 km horizontal resolution, 35 vertical levels • 26/28 ensemble members • Ensemble initial and boundary conditions are generated by perturbing GFS(AVN) analysis/forecast with WRF-VAR error statistics • Assimilated observations: • hurricane track (center position and minimum sea level pressure from NHC advisories) • Satellite winds (3% available observations) • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF mean analysis and from the GFS analysis

  21. Hurricane Ivan 2004 • 36-km horizontal resolution, 28 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity and satellite winds every 3h for a total of 24h • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis and from the GFS analysis

  22. Hurricane Ivan 2004 • 36-km horizontal resolution, 28 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity and satellite winds every 3h for a total of 24h • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis and from the GFS analysis

  23. Hurricane Ivan 2004 • 36-km horizontal resolution, 28 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity and satellite winds every 3h for a total of 24h • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis and from the GFS analysis

  24. Hurricane Katrina 2005 • Analysis: • 36-km horizontal resolution, 26 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity, and satellite winds every hour for a total of 12 hours • Forecasts: • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis, from the GFS/AVN forecasts and from GFDL analysis at 36-km and 12-km resolutions 12-km 36-km

  25. Hurricane Rita and Ophelia 2005 • 36-km horizontal resolution, 26 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity, and satellite winds every hour for a total of 12 hours • Compare forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis and from the GFS/AVN forecasts.

  26. Typhoon Dujuan 2003 • 45-km horizontal resolution, 28 ensemble members • Assimilate position, intensity, satellite winds, and GPS refractivity for 1 day or 2.5 days • Compare forecasts initialized from • EnKF analysis • WRF 3DVAR analysis (3DVAR, cycling for 2.5 days) • GFS analysis (3DVAR-non) Forecast time (day)

  27. Increments to Vortex Structure RITA at 2005-09-20-23Z

  28. Vortex Spin-up 6-h Accumulated Precipitation Katrina 2005, 12-km

  29. Vortex Spin-up Hurricane Ivan 2004 Surface Pressure Tendency GFS0913 EnKF

  30. 2006 Real-time Forecast 2-way nested domain: 36km (183x133x35) – 12km (103x103x35) Assimilation window: 12Z – 00Z, every hour Observations: vortex position, intensity; MADIS satellite wind; dropsondes

  31. Helene (2006) forecast hour forecast hour

  32. Summary • Hurricane track observations can be easily assimilated with an EnKF---effectiveness depends on frequent, accurate observations. • When position errors are larger, non-Gaussian effects important. General purpose ensemble filters (esp. PF) are not feasible solutions. • Track forecasts initialized from the EnKF analysis are significantly improved in retrospective tests. • EnKF analysis produces dynamically consistent increments, and reduces spurious transient evolution of initial vortex.

  33. EnKF Forecast/Analysis Cycle • Forecast: integrate ensemble members to time of next available observations • Update members given new observations • Repeat EnKF initializes its own ensemble and provides short-range ensemble forecast; unifies DA and EF

  34. D3 D1 D2 . obs . obs

  35. 21:10 UTC 21:30 UTC km KOUN 21:50 UTC 22:10 UTC km km km WRF/DART for Doppler Radar Analysis reflectivity (color), obs. (20 dBZ, black contour)

  36. Velocity (m/s) Reflectivity (dBZ) Analysis time (UTC) Analysis time (UTC) WRF/DART for Doppler Radar Background minus observation statistics (av’d over 3 analysis cycles/3 elevation angles)

More Related