DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Forecast Sensitivity to Observations for High-Impact Weather Events in the Korean Peninsula

한반도에 발생한 위험 기상 사례에 대한 관측 민감도 분석

  • Kim, SeHyun (Atmospheric Predictability and Data Assimilation Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hyun Mee (Atmospheric Predictability and Data Assimilation Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Eun-Jung (Numerical Data Application Division, Korea Meteorological Administration) ;
  • Shin, Hyun-Cheol (Numerical Data Application Division, Korea Meteorological Administration)
  • 김세현 (연세대학교 대기과학과, 대기예측성 및 자료동화 연구실) ;
  • 김현미 (연세대학교 대기과학과, 대기예측성 및 자료동화 연구실) ;
  • 김은정 (기상청 수치자료응용과) ;
  • 신현철 (기상청 수치자료응용과)
  • Received : 2013.01.21
  • Accepted : 2013.03.14
  • Published : 2013.06.30

Abstract

Recently, the number of observations used in a data assimilation system is increasing due to the enormous amount of observations, including satellite data. However, it is not clear that all of these observations are always beneficial to the performance of the numerical weather prediction (NWP). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effect of observations on these forecasts so that the observations can be used more usefully in NWP process. In this study, the adjoint-based Forecast Sensitivity to Observation (FSO) method with the KMA Unified Model (UM) is applied to two high-impact weather events which occurred in summer and winter in Korea in an effort to investigate the effects of observations on the forecasts of these events. The total dry energy norm is used as a response function to calculate the adjoint sensitivity. For the summer case, TEMP observations have the greatest total impact while BOGUS shows the greatest impact per observation for all of the 24-, 36-, and 48-hour forecasts. For the winter case, aircraft, ATOVS, and ESA have the greatest total impact for the 24-, 36-, and 48-hour forecasts respectively, while ESA has the greatest impact per observation. Most of the observation effects are horizontally located upwind or in the vicinity of the Korean peninsula. The fraction of beneficial observations is less than 50%, which is less than the results in previous studies. As an additional experiment, the total moist energy norm is used as a response function to measure the sensitivity of 24-hour forecast error to observations. The characteristics of the observation impact with the moist energy response function are generally similar to those with the dry energy response function. However, the ATOVS observations were found to be sensitive to the response function, showing a positive (a negative) effect on the forecast when using the dry (moist) norm for the summer case. For the winter case, the dry and moist energy norm experiments show very similar results because the adjoint of KMA UM does not calculate the specific humidity of ice properly such that the dry and moist energy norms are very similar except for the humidity in air that is very low in winter.

Keywords

References

  1. Baker, N. and R. Daley, 2000: Observation and background adjoint sensitivity in the adaptive observation-targeting problem. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 1431-1454. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656511
  2. Bouttier, F. and G. Kelly, 2001: Observing-system experiments in the ECMWF 4D-Var data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 127, 1469-1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757419
  3. Buizza, R., 1994: Localization of optimal perturbations using a projection operator. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 120, 1647-1681. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712052010
  4. Cardinali, C., 2009: Monitoring the observation impact on the short-range forecast. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135, 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.366
  5. Clayton, A. M., 2004: VAR Scientific Documentation 60, UK Met. Office., 1-12.
  6. Edwards, J. M. and A. Slingo, 1996: Studies with a flexible new radiation code. 1: Choosing a configuration for a large scale model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 122, 689-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712253107
  7. English, S., R. Saunders, B. Candy, M. Forsythe, and A. Collard, 2004. 'Met Office satellite data OSEs.' Pp. 146-156 in Proc. Third WMO workshop on the impact of various observing systems on numerical weather prediction, Alpbach, Austria. WMO/TD-1228, Geneva.
  8. Errico, R. M., 1997: What is an adjoint model? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 2577-2591. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2577:WIAAM>2.0.CO;2
  9. Essery, R., M. Best, and P. Cox, 2001: MOSES 2.2 technical documentation. Hadley Centre technical note 30.
  10. Gelaro, R., Rolf H. Langland, Simon Pellerin, Ricardo Todling, 2010: The THORPEX Observation Impact Intercomparison Experiment. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 4009-4025. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3393.1
  11. Gelaro, R., and Y. Zhu, 2009: Examination of observation impacts derived from observing system experiments (OSEs) and adjoint models. Tellus, 61A, 179-193.
  12. Gregory, D., R., Kershaw, and P. M. Inness, 1997: Parameterization of Momentum Transport by Convection 2: Test in single-Column and General Circulation Models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 123, 1153-1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712354103
  13. Joo, S., A. C. Lorenc, and R. Marriott, 2012: The impact of Metop and other satellite data within the Met Office global NWP system using an adjoint-based sensitivity method, Forecasting Research Tech. Rep. 562, Met Office, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
  14. Jung, B.-J. and H. M. Kim, 2009: Moist-adjoint based forecast sensitivities for a heavy snowfall event over the Korean peninsula on 4-5 March 2004. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D15104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011370
  15. Jung, B.-J. and H. M. Kim, F. Zhang, and C.-C. Wu, 2012: Effect of targeted dropsonde observations and best track data on the track forecasts of Typhoon Sinlaku (2008) using an Ensemble Kalman Filter. Tellus A, 64, 14984. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.14984
  16. Kelly, G., J.-N. Thépaut, R. Buizza, and C. Cardinali, 2007: The value of observations. I: Data denial experiments for the Atlantic and Pacific. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 1803-1815. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.150
  17. Kershaw, R. and D. Gregory, 1997: Parameterization of Momentum Transport by Convection 1: Theory and Cloud Modeling Results. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 123, 1133-1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712354102
  18. Kim, H. M., J. K. Kay, and B.-J. Jung, 2008: Application of adjoint-based forecast sensitivities to Asian dust transport events in Korea. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 195, 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9750-8
  19. Kim, S.-M., H. M. Kim, S.-W. Joo, H.-C. Shin, and D. Won, 2011: Development of tools for calculating forecast sensitivities to the initial condition in the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) Unified Model (UM). Atmosphere, 21(2), 163-172. (in Korean with English abstract)
  20. Kunii, M., T. Miyoshi, and E. Kalnay, 2012: Estimating impact of real observations in regional numerical weather prediction using an ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 1975-1987. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00205.1
  21. Langland, R. H. and N. L. Baker, 2004: Estimation of observation impact using the NRL atmospheric variational data assimilation adjoint system. Tellus, 56A, 189-201.
  22. Lock, A. R., A. R. Brown, M. R. Bush, G. M. Martin, and R. N. B. Smith, 2000: A new boundary-layer mixing scheme. Part 1: Scheme description and single-column model tests. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 3187-3199. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<3187:ANBLMS>2.0.CO;2
  23. Lord, S., Zapotocny, T., and Jung, J., 2004: 'Observing system experiments with NCEP's global forecast system.' pp. 56-62 in Third WMO workshop on the impact of various observing systems on numerical weather prediction, Alpbach, Austria, WMO/TD-1228, Geneva.
  24. Webster, S., A. Brown, A. R., Cameron, D. R., and C. P. Jones, 2003: Improvements to the representation of orography in the Met Office Unified Model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129, 1989-2010. https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.02.133
  25. Wilson, D. R. and S. P. Ballard, 1999: A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK Meteorological Office unified model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 1607-1636. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555707
  26. Zhu, Y. and R. Gelaro, 2008: Observation sensitivity calculations using the adjoint of the Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) analysis system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3525.1

Cited by

  1. Effect of observation error variance adjustment on numerical weather prediction using forecast sensitivity to error covariance parameters vol.70, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2018.1492839
  2. Forecast Sensitivity Observation Impact in the 4DVAR and Hybrid-4DVAR Data Assimilation Systems vol.36, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-18-0240.1