Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 112, Issue 1–2, pp 41–61 | Cite as

The analysis and impact of simulated high-resolution surface observations in addition to radar data for convective storms with an ensemble Kalman filter

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Observing system simulation experiments are performed using an ensemble Kalman filter to investigate the impact of surface observations in addition to radar data on convective storm analysis and forecasting. A multi-scale procedure is used in which different covariance localization radii are used for radar and surface observations. When the radar is far enough away from the main storm so that the low level data coverage is poor, a clear positive impact of surface observations is achieved when the network spacing is 20 km or smaller. The impact of surface data increases quasi-linearly with decreasing surface network spacing until the spacing is close to the grid interval of the truth simulation. The impact of surface data is sustained or even amplified during subsequent forecasts when their impact on the analysis is significant. When microphysics-related model error is introduced, the impact of surface data is reduced but still evidently positive, and the impact also increases with network density. Through dynamic flow-dependent background error covariance, the surface observations not only correct near-surface errors, but also errors at the mid- and upper levels. State variables different from observed are also positively impacted by the observations in the analysis.

Keywords

Radar Data Surface Observation Convective Storm Cold Pool Background Error Covariance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Mingjing Tong for her assistance and helpful discussions on the ARPS EnKF assimilation system, and Nathan Snook for proofreading the manuscript. This work was primarily supported by NSF grants AGS-0331594, AGS-0802888 and OCI-0905040. Ming Xue was also supported by NSF grants AGS-0750790, AGS-0608168 and EEC-0313747, Computations were performed at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) and Oklahoma Supercomputing Center for Research and Education (OSCER).

References

  1. Anderson JL, Wyman B, Zhang S, Hoar T (2005) Assimilation of surface pressure observations using an ensemble filter in an idealized global atmospheric prediction system. J Atmos Sci 62:2925–2938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bratseth AM (1986) Statistical interpolation by means of successive corrections. Tellus 38A:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewster K (1996) Application of a Bratseth analysis scheme including Doppler radar data. In: Preprints, 15th Conf Wea Anal Forecasting, Norfolk, VA, Amer Meteor Soc, pp 92–95Google Scholar
  4. Compo GP, Whitaker JS, Sardeshmukh PD (2006) Feasibility of a 100 year reanalysis using only surface pressure data. Bull Am Meteor Soc 87:175–190Google Scholar
  5. Dawson DT II, Xue M (2006) Numerical forecasts of the 15–16 June 2002 Southern Plains severe MCS: impact of mesoscale data and cloud analysis. Mon Wea Rev 134:1607–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doviak R, Zrnic D (1993) Doppler radar and weather observations, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  7. Dowell D, Zhang F, Wicker LJ, Snyder C, Crook NA (2004) Wind and temperature retrievals in the 17 May 1981 Arcadia, Oklahoma supercell: ensemble Kalman filter experiments. Mon Wea Rev 132:1982–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evensen G (2003) The ensemble Kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean Dyn 53:343–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujita T, Stensrud DJ, Dowell DC (2007) Surface data assimilation using an ensemble Kalman filter approach with initial condition and model physics uncertainties. Mon Wea Rev 135:1846–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaspari G, Cohn SE (1999) Construction of correlation functions in two and three dimensions. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc 125:723–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilmore MS, Straka JM, Rasmussen EN (2004a) Precipitation and evolution sensitivity in simulated deep convective storms: comparisons between liquid-only and simple ice and liquid phase microphysics. Mon Wea Rev 132:1897–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilmore MS, Straka JM, Rasmussen EN (2004b) Precipitation uncertainty due to variations in precipitation particle parameters within a simple microphysics scheme. Mon Wea Rev 132:2610–2627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacker JP, Rostkier-Edelstein D (2007) PBL state estimation with surface observations, a column model, and an ensemble filter. Mon Wea Rev 135:2958–2972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacker JP, Snyder C (2005) Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of fixed screen-height observations in a parameterized PBL. Mon Wea Rev 133:3260–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hong SY, Lim JOJ (2006) The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). J Korean Meteor Soc 42:129–151Google Scholar
  16. Houtekamer PL, Mitchell HL (2001) A sequential ensemble Kalman filter for atmospheric data assimilation. Mon Wea Rev 129:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu M, Xue M, Gao J, Brewster K (2006) 3DVAR and cloud analysis with WSR-88D level-II data for the prediction of Fort Worth tornadic thunderstorms. Part II: Impact of radial velocity analysis via 3DVAR. Mon Wea Rev 134:699–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin YL, Farley RD, Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J ClimAppl Meteor 22:1065–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu H, Xue M (2008) Prediction of convective initiation and storm evolution on 12 June 2002 during IHOP. Part I: control simulation and sensitivity experiments. Mon Wea Rev 136:2261–2283Google Scholar
  20. Lord SJ, Kalnay E, Daley R, Emmitt GD, Atlas R (1997) Using OSSEs in the design of the future generation of integrated observing systems. In: 1st symposium on integrated observation systems, Preprint volume. Amer Meteor Soc Long Beach, pp 45–47Google Scholar
  21. Meng Z, Zhang F (2007) Tests of an ensemble Kalman filter for mesoscale and regional-scale data assimilation. Part II: Imperfect model experiments. Mon Wea Rev 135:1403–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meng Z, Zhang F (2008) Tests of an ensemble Kalman filter for mesoscale and regional-scale data assimilation. Part IV: comparison with 3DVar in a month-long experiment. Mon Wea Rev 136:3671–3682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morss RE, Emanuel KA, Snyder C (2001) Idealized adaptive observation strategies for improving numerical weather prediction. J Atmos Sci 58:210–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ray PS, Johnson B, Johnson KW, Bradberry JS, Stephens JJ, Wagner KK, Wilhelmson RB, Klemp JB (1981) The morphology of severe tornadic storms on 20 May 1977. J Atmos Sci 38:1643–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schultz P (1995) An explicit cloud physics parameterization for operational numerical weather prediction. Mon Wea Rev 123:3331–3343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snook N, Xue M (2008) Effects of microphysical drop size distribution on tornadogenesis in supercell thunderstorms. Geophy Res Lett 35:L24803. doi: 10.1029/2008GL035866
  27. Tong M (2006) Ensemble Kalman filer assimilation of Doppler radar data for the initialization and prediction of convective storms. Dissertation, University of OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  28. Tong M, Xue M (2005) Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of Doppler radar data with a compressible nonhydrostatic model: OSS experiments. Mon Wea Rev 133:1789–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tong M, Xue M (2008a) Simultaneous estimation of microphysical parameters and atmospheric state with radar data and ensemble square-root Kalman filter. Part II: parameter estimation experiments. Mon Wea Rev 136:1649–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tong M, Xue M (2008b) Simultaneous estimation of microphysical parameters and atmospheric state with radar data and ensemble square-root Kalman filter. Part I: sensitivity analysis and parameter identifiability. Mon Wea Rev 136:1630–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weckwerth TM, Parsons DB, Koch SE, Moore JA, LeMone MA, Demoz BB, Flamant C, Geerts B, Wang J, Feltz WF (2004) An overview of the International H2O Project (IHOP_2002) and some preliminary highlights. Bull Am Meteor Soc 85:253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whitaker JS, Hamill TM (2002) Ensemble data assimilation without perturbed observations. Mon Wea Rev 130:1913–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitaker JS, Compo GP, Wei X, Hamill TM (2004) Reanalysis without Radiosondes using ensemble data assimilation. Mon Wea Rev 132:1190–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitaker JS, Hamill TM, Wei X, Song Y, Toth Z (2007) Ensemble data assimilation with the NCEP global forecast system. Mon Wea Rev 136:463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu Q, Lu H, Gao S, Xue M, Tong M (2008) Time-expanded sampling for ensemble Kalman filter: assimilation experiments with simulated radar observations. Mon Wea Rev 136:2651–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xue M, Martin WJ (2006) A high-resolution modeling study of the 24 May 2002 case during IHOP. Part I: numerical simulation and general evolution of the dryline and convection. Mon Wea Rev 134:149–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xue M, Droegemeier KK, Wong V (2000) The Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS)—a multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric simulation and prediction tool. Part I: model dynamics and verification. Meteor Atmos Phys 75:161–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xue M, Droegemeier KK, Wong V, Shapiro A, Brewster K, Carr F, Weber D, Liu Y, Wang DH (2001) The Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS)—a multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric simulation and prediction tool. Part II: model physics and applications. Meteor Atmos Phys 76:143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xue M, Wang DH, Gao JD, Brewster K, Droegemeier KK (2003) The Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS), storm-scale numerical weather prediction and data assimilation. Meteor Atmos Phys 82:139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xue M, Tong M, Droegemeier KK (2006) An OSSE framework based on the ensemble square-root Kalman filter for evaluating impact of data from radar networks on thunderstorm analysis and forecast. J Atmos Ocean Tech 23:46–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xue M, Jung Y, Zhang G (2007) Error modeling of simulated reflectivity observations for ensemble Kalman filter data assimilation of convective storms. Geophys Res Lett 34:L10802. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang F, Snyder C, Sun J (2004) Impacts of initial estimate and observations on the convective-scale data assimilation with an ensemble Kalman filter. Mon Wea Rev 132:1238–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang F, Meng Z, Aksoy A (2006) Tests of an ensemble Kalman filter for mesoscale and regional-scale data assimilation. Part I: perfect model experiments. Mon Wea Rev 134:722–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms and School of Meteorology, National Weather CenterUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations