Experiments of Hurricane Initialization with WRF Variational Data Assimilation System
Hybrid Variational-Ensemble Data Assimilation - Weather-Chaos
Transcript of Hybrid Variational-Ensemble Data Assimilation - Weather-Chaos
1
Hybrid variational-ensemble data assimilation
Daryl T. Kleist
Kayo Ide, Dave Parrish, John Derber, Jeff Whitaker
Weather and Chaos Group Meeting 07 March 2011
2
Variational
Data Assimilation
c''
o1T''
o'1
VarT''
Var 21
21 JJ HxyRHxyxBxx
J
: Penalty (Fit to background + Fit to observations + Constraints)x’
: Analysis increment (xa
– xb
) ; where xb
is a backgroundBVar
: Background error covarianceH
: Observations (forward) operator
R
: Observation error covariance (Instrument + representativeness)
yo
’
: Observation innovationsJc
: Constraints (physical quantities, balance/noise, etc.)
B
is typically static and estimated a-priori/offline
3
Motivation from Var
•
Current background error covariance (applied operationally) in VAR –
Isotropic recursive filters
–
Poor handle on cross-variable covariance–
Minimal flow-dependence added
•
Implicit flow-dependence through linearization in normal mode constraint (Kleist et al. 2009)
•
Flow-dependent variances (only for wind, temperature, and pressure) based on background tendencies
–
Tuned NMC-based estimate (lagged forecast pairs)
4
Kalman
Filter in Var
Setting
KFKF BKHIA
ab xx M
yHxKxx bba
1TKF
TKF
HHBRHBK
QMAMB TKFKF
Forecast Step
Analysis
•
Analysis step in variational
framework (cost function)
Extended Kalman Filter
''o
1T''o
'1KF
T''KF 2
121 HxyRHxyxBxx J
•
BKF
: Time evolving background error covariance•
AKF
: Inverse [Hessian of JKF
(x’)]
5
Motivation from KF
TbbKF 1
1 XXB
K
ab XX
•
Problem: dimensions of AKF
and BKF
are huge, making this practically impossible for large systems (GFS for example).
•
Solution: sample and update using an ensemble instead of evolving AKF
/BKF
explicitly
TaaKF 1
1 XXA
K
Ensemble Perturbations
ba XX Forecast Step:
Analysis Step:
6
Why Hybrid?
VAR (3D, 4D)
EnKF Hybrid References
Benefit from use of flow dependent ensemble covariance instead of static B
x x Hamill
and Snyder 2000; Wang et al. 2007b,2008ab, 2009b, Wang 2011; Buehner
et al. 2010ab
Robust for small ensemble x Wang et al. 2007b, 2009b; Buehner
et al. 2010b
Better localization for integrated measure, e.g. satellite radiance
x Campbell et al. 2009
Easy framework to add various constraints
x x
Framework to treat non-
Gaussianity
x x
Use of various existing capabilities in VAR
x x
7
Hybrid Variational-Ensemble
•
Incorporate ensemble perturbations directly into variational
cost function through extended control
variable–
Lorenc
(2003), Buehner
(2005), Wang et. al. (2007), etc.
111
ef
't
'o
1T't
'o
1Te
'f
1T'ff
'f 2
121
21 HxyRHxyLxBxx ,J
K
kkk
1
e'f
't xxx
f
& e
: weighting coefficients for fixed and ensemble covariance respectivelyxt
: (total increment) sum of increment from fixed/static B
(xf
) and ensemble B k
: extended control variable; :ensemble perturbationL: correlation matrix [localization on ensemble perturbations]
ekx
8
Importance of Ensemble Generation Method?
•
GEFS (already operational)–
80 cycled members–
ETR•
Virtually no computational cost•
Uses analysis error mask derived for 500 mb
streamfunction•
Tuned for medium range forecast spread and fast “error growth”–
T190L28
version of the GFS model–
Viable for hybrid paradigm?
•
EnKF–
80 cycled members–
Perturbations specifically designed to represent analysis and background errors
–
T254L64
version of the GFS–
Extra computational costs worth it for hybrid?
9
EnKF/ETR Comparison
EnKF
(green) versus ETR (red) spread/standard deviation for surface
pressure (mb) valid 2010101312
Surface Pressure spread normalized difference (ETR has much less spread,
except poleward
of 70N)
10
EnKF/ETR Comparison
EnKF
zonal wind (m/s) ensemble standard deviation valid 2010101312
ETR zonal wind (m/s) ensemble standard deviation valid 2010101312
11
EnKF/NMC B
Compare
EnKF
zonal wind (m/s) ensemble standard deviation valid 2010101312
Zonal Wind standard deviation (m/s) from “NMC-method”
12
Hybrid with (global) GSI
•
Control variable has been implemented into GSI 3DVAR*–
Full B
preconditioning•
Working on extensions to B1/2
preconditioned minimization options–
Spectral filter for horizontal part of A•
Eventually replace with (anisotropic) recursive filters–
Recursive filter used for vertical–
Dual resolution capability•
Ensemble can be from different resolution than background/analysis (vertical levels are the exception)
–
Various localization options for A•
Grid units or scale height•
Level dependent (plans to expand)–
Option to apply TLNMC (Kleist et al. 2009) to analysis increment
K
k
ekk
1
'f
' xxCx
*Acknowledgement: Dave Parrish for original implementation of extended control variable
14
Single Observation
Single 850mb zonal wind observation (3 m/s
O-F, 1m/s error) in Hurricane Ike circulation
EnKFmember update
member 2 analysis
high resforecast
GSIHybrid Ens/Var
high resanalysis
member 1 analysis
member 2 forecast
member 1 forecast
recenteranalysis ensemble
Dual-Res Coupled Hybrid
member 3 forecast
member 3 analysis
Previous Cycle Current Update Cycle
16
Hybrid Var-EnKF
GFS experiment
•
Model–
GFS deterministic (T574L64; post July 2010 version –
current operational version)–
GFS ensemble (T254L64)•
80 ensemble members, EnKF
update, GSI for observation operators
•
Observations–
All operationally available observations (including radiances)–
Includes early (GFS) and late (GDAS/cycled) cycles as in production
•
Dual-resolution/Coupled•
High resolution control/deterministic component–
Includes TC Relocation on guess•
Ensemble is recentered
every cycle about hybrid analysis –
Discard ensemble mean analysis
•
Satellite bias corrections –
Coefficients come from GSI/VAR
•
Parameter settings•
1/3 static B, 2/3 ensemble•
Fixed localization: 800km & 1.5 scale heights
•
Test Period–
15 July 2010 –
15 October 2010 (first two weeks ignored for “spin-up”)
19
Geopotential
Height RMSENorthern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere
Significant reduction in mean height errors
21
Forecast Fits to Obs
(Tropical Winds)
Forecasts from hybrid analyses fit observation much better.
25
HVEDAS (3D) for GDAS/GFS•
Prototype dual-resolution, two-way coupled hybrid Var/EnKF
system outperforms standard 3DVAR in GFS experiments–
2010 Hurricane Season (August 15 through October 31 2010) run off-
site
–
Emphasis on AC, RMSE, TC Tracks
•
Plan underway to implement into GDAS/GFS operationally–
Target: Spring 2012 (subject to many potential issues)•
Porting of codes/scripts back to IBM P6•
Cost analysis (will everything fit in production suite?)•
More thorough (pre-implementation) testing and evaluation–
More test periods (including NH winter)–
Other/more verification metrics•
Potential moratorium associated with move to new NCEP facility
•
Issues–
Weighting between ensemble and static B–
Localization–
How should EnKF
be used within ensemble forecasting
paradigm?
26
HVEDAS Extensions and Improvements
•
Expand hybrid to 4D–
Hybrid within ‘traditional 4DVAR’
(with adjoint)–
Pure ensemble 4DVAR (non-adjoint)–
Ensemble 4DVAR with static B supplement (non-adjoint)*
•
EnKF
improvements–
Explore alternatives such as LETKF–
Adaptive localization and inflation
•
Non-GFS applications in development–
NASA GEOS-5 (GMAO)–
NAM (Dave Parrish, others)–
Hurricanes/HWRF (Mingjing
Tong, HFIP, many collaborators)–
Storm-scale initialization (Jacob Carley, collaborators)–
RR (Xuguang
Wang, Ming Xue, Stan Benjamin, Jeff Whitaker, Steve Weygandt, others)
•
NCEP strives to have single DA system to develop, maintain, and run operationally (global, mesoscale, severe weather, hurricanes, etc.)
–
GSI (including hybrid development) is community code supported through DTC–
EnKF
used for GFS-based hybrid being expanded for use with other applications