Impact of Increased ROMEX GNSS Radio Occultation Data on Forecast Performance in the Korean Integrated Model
Abstract. Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation (GNSS RO) data can be assimilated to improve global numerical weather prediction (NWP). While simulation studies and observing system experiments have indicated benefits from increasing RO data volume, the extent to which large-volume RO assimilation improves forecasts in an operational NWP configuration has been less thoroughly quantified. As part of the international Radio Occultation Modeling Experiment (ROMEX), which assesses the forecast impact of GNSS RO observations, this study evaluates the effect of increased GNSS RO data volume on the forecast performance of the Korean Integrated Model (KIM), the operational global NWP model of the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Four baseline experiments were conducted: NoRO (without GNSS RO observations), CTL (operational-level GNSS RO volume), EXP_20k (≈20 000 profiles d⁻¹), and EXP_35k (≈35 000 profiles d⁻¹). To investigate the sensitivity of the EXP_35k results to the assimilation configuration, additional experiments were conducted by adjusting the observation-error inflation factor and the refractivity coefficient k1 (the dry-term coefficient in the refractivity equation). A comparison of NoRO and CTL results showed that the assimilation of GNSS RO observations in KIM generally improved temperature and geopotential height forecasts in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. With larger GNSS RO datasets, EXP_20k showed relatively consistent improvements across most regions and levels, whereas EXP_35k maintained the global-mean improvement in 100 hPa temperature forecasts but showed weaker improvement in the tropics at that level. It also produced a pronounced increase in tropical 500 hPa geopotential height root-mean-square error, clearest through the first three forecast days and weakening only gradually through day 5. These results indicate that increasing the RO data volume does not translate linearly into forecast improvement and that the response of the current KIM assimilation configuration depends on the region, pressure level, and forecast variable. Increasing the observation-error inflation factor mitigated part of the mid-level geopotential height degradation but also indicated that this change weakens the upper-level temperature improvement attributable to RO data. In the k1 adjustment experiments, increasing k1 in KIM produced more favorable results than did decreasing it for certain variables and levels but did not directly resolve the main degradation observed in EXP_35k. The analysis-increment diagnostics showed similar tropical mid-level increment statistics across the three experiments, suggesting that the degradation is more likely related to accumulated differences in the analysis field or the forecast error growth than to excessive per-cycle analysis adjustment. These results show that the forecast impact of large-volume GNSS RO data is sensitive to the observation-error configuration and observation-operator coefficient. They further highlight that maximizing the value of future high-density GNSS RO observing systems depends not only on increased observation availability but also on continued improvements in observation-error modeling, observation handling, and observation operators within data assimilation systems.
The manuscript "Impact of Increased ROMEX GNSS Radio Occultation Date on
Forecast Performance in the Korean Integrated Model" by Eun-Hee Kim et
al. presents a nice contribution to the AMT ROMEX special issue. The
manuscript is mostly well readable and also mostly clear.
Nevertheless, the manuscript could still be slightly improved by addressing
the issues discussed below:
- Page 2, line 37: "... where conventional surface-based observing
networks are sparse ..."
I recommend to remove "surface-based". There are other conventional
observing networks which can provide locally rather dense datasets, like
aircraft.
- Page 2, line 41: "... they have played a key role ..."
Why "have played"? The still do play a key role!
- Page 2, line 44: "... assimilating CHAMP RO observations could improve ..."
Why only "could"? Does it, or not?
- Page 3, line 78: "... specific-constellation data ..."
What is this? constellation-specific? Please provide some context!
- Page 3, line 81: "... reduced effective independence among observations,
increased representativeness error ..."
I do not understand what the authors mean here, and if I start to guess I
also seriously doubt that my interpretation of the guess could be
correct. Please reformulate and/or explain better.
- Page 3, line 89: "... translate linearly into forecast improvement ..."
It is unclear to mean what "linearly" means here. Did you mean
"directly" as a qualitative measure, or something else?
- Page 4, line 99: "... reported increasing biases ..."
As it is formulated, it is unclear whether the other centers saw benefits
besides the bias issue. I believe that standard deviation shows
improvement at least for various variables and levels.
- Page 4, line 107: The reference to a parameter k_1 implies that a
refractivity expression like Smith-Weintraub is used. Please clarify!
Also eq.(3) lacks a reference.
- Page 5, Figure 1 and accompanying text: the caption explains that the
counts shown are not the profiles but the observations within the
profiles. Please explain this also in the main text. Do these numbers
refer to the observations in the BUFR data before or after thinning (as
mentioned on p.7)? If possible, combine satellites where appropriate
(e.g. Metop-B/C; COSMIC-2).
- Page 6, Figure 2: there are too many lines in this plot. Can the
statistics for some of the satellites be combined? E.g. the Metops, or
the COSMIC-2's? The observation count also seems to be of little use
here.
- Page 7, line 165: Is vertical thinning done in the operational
configuration, or only done for the ROMEX setup? It appears that the
thinning is done at constant 400 m over the whole profile. Is the
vertical variation of the model layer thickness taken into account in
some way (if so, how?) or ignored?
- Page 7, line 169: How is the duplicate check implemented, if not by
horizontal thinning? In the past, some processing centers did produce
almost-duplicates that were not identical (e.g. due to slightly different
orbit solutions) and not detected at the production site.
Are the gross checks described somewhere (reference if possible)?
- Page 7, line 176: "Larger observation errors are assigned in the lower
troposphere to account for super-refraction and signal-tracking
uncertainty."
These are not the only reasons. Representativeness error (humidity
structure, horizontal inhomogeneity, etc.) is also very important.
And super-refraction is only relevant at rather low impact height.
- Page 7, line 185: Is there an explanation for a baseline inflation factor
of 2.5, which already seems rather large? Is it for unaccounted
observation error correlation, or for another reason?
- Page 7, line 190: "In addition, to assess the sensitivity of the physical
coefficient used in the refractivity calculation, ..."
I am a little confused: refractivity is the physical quantity, which is
parameterized in terms of some coefficients, which have a (physical)
dimension, but these have no physical meaning besides this
parameterization. Can you reformulate?
- Page 13, line 298-299: "... in the tropics, it weakened or reversed
(Table 2), and a pronounced degradation occurred in tropical 500 hPa
geopotential height forecasts."
Note that IFS may be a very good model, but it is not bias-free and not
the truth. And geopotential height in the tropics is a very delicate
quantity because of lack of geostropic balance. Can you say whether KIM
has a significant drift in mean geopotential height bias over the
relevant forecast lead times? It would also be helpful to generally
decompose the RMS error seen in the verification into the respective bias
and standard deviation components where appropriate and feasible. (This
is done for radiosondes in fig.5, but not for the analysis verification.
Figure 7 could benefit here, as well as tables 2,3.) Especially the
discussion about k1 modifications should show a clear correlation with
geopotential height bias, or (lower) tropospheric temperature bias.
Furthermore, it might be helpful to look at verification scores separated
by latitude bands (NH,TR,SH), as models sometimes have regionally varying
biases, and thus respond differently to changing observation impact.
This applies also to the discussion further down in the text (e.g. lines
322ff).
- Tables 2,3: how is the average calculated over multiple lead times
(12-120h)? Doesn't RMSE usually increase with lead time?
- Figure 8: the colors of the lines may be hard to distinguish for the some
readers. Can you find a better solution? Maybe also adjust the scales.
- Figure 9: the labels are rather tiny, can this be improved?
- Page 22, line 431: "background error covariance" is suddenly mentioned,
as well as in line 562, but there is no connection in the discussion. It
is some general property of a data assimilation system, but what do the
authors want to express here?
- Page 23, line 456: "... vertical statistical characteristics ..."
Shouldn't this read: "vertical observation error characteristics"?
- Page 23, line 464: "... by considering not only the data volume itself
but also the data density, constellation-specific characteristics, and
spatial distribution of observation influence."
This is confusing. OK, data volume and data density are (trivially)
related for a given constellation, but what do the authors mean by
constellation-specific characteristics? How is that relevant? And what
is "spatial distribution of observation influence"? Isn't that a
property of the data assimilation system (B-matix, localization, ...)
rather than of the observations? Please clarify and/or reformulate!
- Page 28, line 577: "multi-lead-time analysis". Sounds uncommon to me.
Can you rephrase?