1 / 15

Coupled HWRF-HYCOM (HyHWRF) and Forecast Performance Results

Coupled HWRF-HYCOM (HyHWRF) and Forecast Performance Results. by HYCOM team. MMAB/EMC/NWS/NCEP/NOAA. and HWRF team. EMC/NWS/NCEP/NOAA. Outline: Introduction to HyHWRF Motivations Progress in NCEP/EMC Validation of Ocean Simulations AXBT Data Assimilation

eli
Télécharger la présentation

Coupled HWRF-HYCOM (HyHWRF) and Forecast Performance Results

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. Coupled HWRF-HYCOM (HyHWRF) and Forecast Performance Results by HYCOM team MMAB/EMC/NWS/NCEP/NOAA and HWRF team EMC/NWS/NCEP/NOAA

  2. Outline: • Introduction to HyHWRF • Motivations • Progress in NCEP/EMC • Validation of Ocean Simulations • AXBT Data Assimilation • HyHWRF Pre-Ops Testing Results • Risks • Summary

  3. The HyHWRF Hurricane Prediction System GSI: Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation

  4. Motivations GFDL-POM and HWRF-POM are proven systems. Why transition to HYCOM? • Scientific / technical issues: • Use operational RTOFS-Atlantic model for IC and BC: • Realistic real-time ocean • Full ocean model: • Separate support community • Solid base for physics based improvement. • Management of NCEP production suite: • No support (at NCEP) for further development of POM based system • Cannot afford to maintain multiple systems

  5. NCEP/EMC progress HYCOM – HWRF (HyHWRF) • System reaching maturity at the end of 2008 • Initial development not with operational HWRF: • Needing H050 baseline for sensible coupling • HR issues • Parallel testing with frozen system for 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season: • Goal: Show potential impact of POM-HYCOM replacement • Compare to operational HWRF • In pre-op testing for possible 2010 operational implementation • Fully integrated with HWRF development path • Goal: Replacing POM with HYCOM should do no harm • AXBT data assimilation in RTOFS • Pipe line set up from NCO to RTOFS • AXBT data assimilation tested

  6. Loop Current Loop Current Ocean Validation Pre-Storm Survey for Gustav (07L), 2008 • Skin temperature O(0.5oC) • Wentz, et al (2000) • Excellent Agreement in SST • Good Agreement in Spatial Variation

  7. In-Storm Survey for Gustav (07L): August 31 08Z – 13Z, 2008 Ocean Validation (cont’ed) • remote sensing data scarce • We Need Real-Time Data Feed!

  8. AXBT Data Assimilation Using data collected in July 2009 • 27/57 probes accepted thru QC Blue: data Green: w/o Other: w Accepted Accepted Rejected

  9. HyHWRF Pre-Op Testing

  10. No GFS res. incr. HyHWRF Pre-Ops Testing Result TRACK Forecast 25 NM improvement 10 NM improvement Green: Operation 2009 HWRF model. Red: New baseline HWRF model (H050) Purple: 2010 test package (POM) (H054) Orange: 2010 test package (HYCOM) (HYC2)

  11. No GFS res. incr. HyHWRF Pre-Ops Testing Result INTENSITY Forecast 1.5 kt improvement Overall, ~4 kt improvement Green: Operation 2009 HWRF model. Red: New baseline HWRF model (H050) Purple: 2010 test package (POM) (H054) Orange: 2010 test package (HYCOM) (HYC2)

  12. Risks Replacing POM with HYCOM • HYCOM (with RTOFS-Atlantic) is a much more complex system than POM without real-time continuous initialization • Risk: previous issues with quality of RTOFS-Atlantic • Mitigation: New procedures are in place to rapidly resolve spurious behavior in operations • Mitigation: Adding Jason-2 to SSH data to better constrain model • Mitigation: growing support group for RTOFS • Possible mitigation: Fallback to other SST in coupler

  13. Risks (cont’ed) • HYCOM-HWRF coupling is more complex • Risk: Small support group for coupled system • Mitigation: Dedicated group expanded from 1 to 3 • Mitigation: Community support (FSU, AOML, …) • Risk: Complexity of system may make it more prone to failure • Reality: This system will be fully supported in-house, the present POM base system is not • Reality: This system was robust in parallel testing • Possible mitigation: Fallback to other SST in coupler

  14. Computational Cost Analysis • HYCOM runs on more processes than POM, but HYCOM requires resources much less than HWRF (see Table) • HyHWRF takes < 57 min. w/ 2 nodes (same allocated resource) • Same as Operational HWRF!! assigned resources in test setup Done by Utilizing IBM Supercomputer Configuration, e.g., Logical = 64 Procs/Node

  15. Summary: • HYCOM is complex, and HYCOM-HWRF is more complex. However, HYCOM is based on Solid Physics; • HyHWRF has shown Consistent and Persistent Predictions; • In-House Infrastructure for IC and BC, as well as Routes for Real-Time Streamline Data; • In-House Support as well as Community Support. • Computation Time: HYCOM-HWRF = POM-HWRF

More Related