the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Incremental Analysis Update (IAU) in the Model for Prediction Across Scales coupled with the Joint Effort for Data assimilation Integration (MPAS-JEDI 2.0.0)
Jonathan J. Guerrette
Ivette Hernandez Banos
William C. Skamarock
Michael G. Duda
Abstract. In a cycling system where data assimilation (DA) and model simulation are executed consecutively, the model forecasts initialized from the analysis (or data assimilation) can be systematically affected by dynamic imbalances generated during the analysis process. The high-frequency noise arising from the imbalances in the initial conditions can impose constraints on computational stability and efficiency during subsequent model simulations and can potentially become the low-frequency waves of physical significance. To mitigate these initial imbalances, the incremental analysis update (IAU) has long been utilized in the cycling context. This study introduces our recent implementation of the IAU in the Model for Prediction Across Scales for the Atmospheric component (MPAS-A), coupled with the Joint Effort for Data assimilation Integration (JEDI), through the cycling system called MPAS-Workflow. During the integration of the compressible nonhydrostatic equations in MPAS-A, analysis increments are distributed over a predefined time window (e.g., 6 hours) as fractional forcing at each time step. In a real case study with the assimilation of all conventional and satellite radiance observations every 6 h for one month, starting from mid-April 2018, model forecasts with IAU show that the initial noise illustrated by surface pressure tendency becomes well constrained throughout the forecast lead times, enhancing the system reliability. The month-long cycling with the assimilation of real observations demonstrates the successful implementation of the IAU capability in the MPAS-JEDI cycling system. Along with the comparison between the forecasts with and without IAU, several aspects on the implementation in MPAS-JEDI are discussed. Corresponding updates have been incorporated into the MPAS-A model (originally based on version 7.1), which is now publicly available in MPAS-JEDI and MPAS-Workflow Version 2.0.0.
- Preprint
(1967 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Soyoung Ha et al.
Status: open (until 08 Jan 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2299', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2023
reply
This manuscript introduced the three-dimensional IAU implemented in the MPAS-JEDI 2.0.0. Previous studies have shown that IAU can effectively remedy the imbalance caused by intermittent data assimilation. It is worthwhile to investigate the performances and potential issues of IAU for a global model with varying horizontal meshes, which would provide guidance for future seamless predictions. The manuscript is pleasant to read. Please see my specific comments as below.
- l58-60, this sentence needs be clarified. What’s the difference between full fields and prognostic variables? Are the prognostic variables subsets of the full fields? If yes, why transform to the prognostic variables imposes more imbalances than that to full fields?
- l62-64, it would be nice to add some references for the imbalances mentioned here.
- l118, what is phi?
- l112-122, since the transformation from grid point to mesh grid is not linear, it is not equivalent to transform the increment or the analysis. For the MPAS-IAU, is the native increment or the analysis used as the input for MPAS simulations?
- l127-130, how much the error could be introduced by this hydrostatic assumption?
- l176, please spell 4DIAU out at the first time.
- l173-177, it is interesting to know the IAU terms for hydrometer variables. Are they the same as Eq. 12?
- l195-210, if a restart file is used for cycling, how the analysis and analysis tendency are computed for multiple time slices?
- l229, what is YAML?
- l225-235, is UFO an independent module outside of minimization or filtering? If so, how the bias correction (VarBC) is performed for radiance observations? How’s the inter-channel correlations handled by the UFO?
- l241, it is interesting to know whether the IAU functions well with inhomogeneous grids?
- Section 4, it would be more convincing to have the statistical significance of the error differences between CTRL and IAU. It would be nice to have the verifications of CTRL and IAU relative to ECMWF or NCEP analysis, especially for water vapor.
- l280-285, please give some explanations for the error differences between the CTRL and IAU. Why IAU helps over the tropics but not over the polar regions. Is it possible this is due to the moving systems over the tropics (Ge et al. 2023 JAMES)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2299-RC1
Soyoung Ha et al.
Soyoung Ha et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
14 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 14
- PDF: 3
- XML: 4
- Total: 21
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1