34
Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update Dr. Louis W. Uccellini Director, NCEP 90 th AMS Annual Meeting Atlanta, Georgia January 19, 2009 “Where America’s Climate, Weather, Ocean and Space Weather Services Begin”

Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

  • Upload
    aderes

  • View
    46

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update. Dr. Louis W. Uccellini Director, NCEP. 90 th AMS Annual Meeting Atlanta, Georgia January 19, 2009. “Where America’s Climate, Weather, Ocean and Space Weather Services Begin”. Outline. General response to UCAR reviews 2009 NCEP highlights - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

Response to NCEP Reviews/NCEP Update

Dr. Louis W. UccelliniDirector, NCEP

90th AMS Annual MeetingAtlanta, GeorgiaJanuary 19, 2009

“Where America’s Climate, Weather, Ocean and Space Weather Services Begin”

Page 2: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

2

Outline

• General response to UCAR reviews• 2009 NCEP highlights

– Computer transition– Model implementations– Performance metrics– “Dropout Team” accomplishments– Prediction of December 8-9 Midwest Storm– Climate portal– Reanalysis status– Center highlights for 2009

• 2010 model implementations• Budget information• New building status• Summary

Page 3: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

Response to Reviews

Page 4: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

4

General Response

• Deep appreciation for the amazing amount of work and dedication of the review teams

• I believe many of the issues articulated can be addressed within NCEP resources

• Other issues that will necessitate efforts within the NOAA budget approval process

• Already begun acting on several of the recommendations (e.g., secured 2 FTEs for the SPC fire weather program)

• Individual centers are assessing reports and communicating with the workforce – laying out strategies for moving forward (e.g., EMC- NCO)

Page 5: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

UCAR Review of EMC• Recognition of EMC’s fundamental role in

– Scientific maintenance of NCEP’s operational systems– Transition to operations of new capabilities– Enhancement of current operational capabilities

• Recognition of high level of organizational achievement• Concerns and issues

– Global system falling behind international competitors– Too many “models”– Interactions with research community less than desirable– Less than adequate computing resources– Mismatch of human resources and scope of work– Working relationship with NCO

• Recommendations– Single atmosphere-ocean-land surface modeling system– Implement advanced data assimilation system across atmospheric applications– Work closer with NCO on

• Implementation process• Strategic issues (e.g. computing resources)• Improving relationships at all levels

• More details will be available after Review Team presentation at AMS next week

5

Page 6: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

EMC and NCO Response to UCAR Review Team• EMC should:

– Have access to substantially increased computer capabilities– Match human resources to the stated operational mission– Embrace an entirely new approach to model development and implementation

• focus on a single, powerful, flexible atmosphere-ocean-land surface modeling system • involve the entire national weather and climate modeling community• Employ data assimilation capabilities that are significantly advanced beyond those now used

– NCEP must alleviate tensions between NCO and EMC • EMC and NCO Directors and staff recognize these tensions and are determined to

alleviate them and improve working relationships at all levels– Since July 2009, NCO and EMC Directors are working together to:

• Begin to improve and streamline the implementation process• Manage progress toward individual implementations on a weekly basis• Manage use of HPC resources at NCEP’s disposal (Resource Allocation Council)• Support operational applications from the NOAA National Ocean Service

– Applications planned for 2010-2011 implementation– Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay, Delaware Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Columbia

River• Introduce Tsunami and Space Weather to NCEP’s operational applications• Advocate for increased HPC resources through NOAA HPC management and upper

level NOAA program management – EMC and NCO Directors are

• Supportive of and enthusiastic about these developments• Determined to institute an atmosphere of full cooperation between NCO and EMC

at management and working levels6

Page 7: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

7

Next Steps

• Continue to engage the Review Executive Board at each step to insure response meets recommendations and provide semi-annual reports for larger community

• NCEP management meeting (January 28)– Develop matrix for all recommendations– Track all related activities– Look to FY10 budget to initiate changes– Separate out the longer term issues and recommendations and begin engaging

review committee and NOAA process for solutions– Explore various approaches for standing up an NCEP Advisory group. Establish by

end of FY10

• Longer term– NOAA/PPBES process (e.g., NOAA already addressing NCEP operational

computer)– NWS OSIP Process– NCEP “Summit” in March, 2010 (organized by NWSHQ/OCWWS)

• Engage NOAA’s Environmental Model Program (EMP)– All NOAA modeling, HPCC, resource issues need to be worked through EMP

• Engage NWSEO at each step

Page 8: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

2009 NCEP Highlights

Page 9: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

9

Central Computer System (CCS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

JUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL JANJUL

Popularity of NCEP Models Web Page

Mill

ions

of H

its

2001 2009

• Transition to IBM Power 6 complete– Declared operational August

12, 2009– 69.7 trillion calculations/sec– Factor of 4 increase over the IBM

Power5 – 4,992 processors– 20 terabytes of memory – 330 terabytes of disk space– 1.7 billion observations/day– 27.8 Million model fields/day

• Primary: Gaithersburg, MD• Backup: Fairmont, WV

– Guaranteed switchover in 15 minutes

– Web access to models as they run on the CCS

Page 10: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

10

FY2009 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

RUC- 3-D Radar Reflectivity, Rapid Radiative Transfer Model

11/17/08

Wave Watch III- Great Lakes NDFD Wind Driven Model

11/18/08

NAM- WRF-NMM radiation parameterization, changing the turbulent mixing and diffusion schemes, two cold-season related changes to the WRF-NMM land-surface physics, TAMDAR data

12/16/08

Moratorium for CCS P6 Upgrade Dec 08 - Jun 09 Aug 09

Ended8/12/09

GSI- Add IASI long wave brightness temperatures; improve computational efficiency; new version of CRTM_GFSGSI for radiative transfer; change background error variances and standard deviations; variational QC

2/20/09

Page 11: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

11

CDAS/Reanl vs GFSNH/SH 500Hpa day 5

Anomaly Correlation (20-80 N/S)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1979 1989 1999 2009

YEAR

An

om

aly

Co

rre

lati

on

NH GFS

SH GFS

NH CDAS/R1

SH CDAS/R1RecordValue

Page 12: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

12

Day at which fcst loses useful skill (AC=0.6) N. Hemisphere calendar year means

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

NCEP/GFS

Fore

cast

day

Page 13: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

13

Page 14: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

14

Page 15: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

15

Page 16: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

16

Page 17: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

17

Placeholder for Dropout slides (2)

Page 18: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

• GFS dropouts that are ≤ 0.70

• The month of October for the last 3 years has produced a total of 17 dropouts in the NH

• Decrease in NH dropouts during the winter months

• In general, almost 3 times as many dropouts in the SH compared to NH (36 NH vs. 93 SH)

Monthly Count of GFS Dropouts (Oct '07-Dec '09)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Month-Year

# of

dro

pout

s

Northern Hem.

Southern Hem.

Page 19: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

Reaching Our GoalsOur Goal: Improvement of the GFS using dropouts as case studies measuring ECMWF differences with GFS and other statistics to solve QC problems

• Extended network of partners upstream of the data flow concerned with dropouts (NESDIS, NRL, COPC,…)

• Developed an additional framework for parallel experiments of raw observations (dumps) from data tanks, e.g. station dictionary changes

• Performed impact experiments modifying or withholding select observations within the PREPBUFR or non-conventional files

• Comparisons between GFS and ECMWF using controlled (ECM) experiments to show the horizontal and vertical location of IC differences that caused dropouts

• Establishment of standard procedures when dropouts occur• High-resolution (91 layer) ECMWF analysis in addition to low-resolution

(ECM) experiments• Compiled statistics of how the GSI draws for observation types to quantify

inherent biases and implement improvements to QC programs – an ongoing program

• Real Time Data Monitoring System (RTDMS) extended to 30 days

Page 20: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

Reaching Our GoalsOur Goal: Improvement of the GFS using dropouts as case studies measuring ECMWF differences with GFS and other statistics to solve QC problems

• Currently operational:– Updated the station dictionary (dropout relieved during the

testing period)– Regional ATOVS Retransmission (RARS) resulting in

more polar orbits– P5 to P6 transition change in data dump time for longer

data window– NESDIS response to satellite data issue more prompt

• Pending:– Asymmetric satellite wind quality control– Real Time Data Monitoring System (RTDMS) extended to

30 day archive

Page 21: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

21

Increasing realization that

NAM and SREF are becoming

important tool for Days 1-3 forecast of

extreme events

Dec 8-9th Midwest Snowstormmodel "spread" from 5 days out, with the white swath being the spread of the ECWMF, Canadian, and GFS Ensembles

48 hours out, with the NAM, GFS, ECMWF, UKMET, and

Canadian plotted. The NAM is the left outlier, which tracked it right over Milwaukee 48 hours

out. The SREF had a similar track.

Verification

Prediction of December 8-9 Midwest Storm

Page 22: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

22

NCS Climate Portal: Data & Services

NOAA is developing a comprehensive, Climate Portal that provides ready access to all NOAA climate data, products, and services.

www.climate.gov

Page 23: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

23

NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis

• Complete as of November 2009• A global, high resolution, coupled atmosphere-ocean-land surface-sea

ice system for the period 1979-2009. • Atmosphere resolution: 38 km (T382), 64 levels extending to 0.26 hPa• Ocean resolution: 0.25 degree at the equator, 40 levels to 4737 m depth• Products available at hourly time resolution, 0.5 degree horizontal

resolution, and at 37 standard pressure levels• CFSR products began being transmitted on December 7, 2009, to the

NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC), the official dissemination outlet for the CFSR. NCAR will also host a copy of the CFSR.

• CPC is in the process of generating its operational climate diagnostics products from the CFSR data.

• An operational implementation of the entire CFSR system, including all hindcast model runs, is scheduled for Q1 of FY11.

Page 24: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

24

Highlights from 2009

• NCO – progress towards migrating NAWIPS to AWIPS2• EMC - porting the NCEP Production System to the Power 6

system (with NCO)• HPC - operational implementation of the forecast graphics and

narratives for Alaska• OPC - Ocean surface current and SST forecast (experimental)• CPC – contribution to the “climate.gov” Climate Portal• AWC – operational production of G-AIRMET• SPC - routine issuance of high-time resolution probabilistic

thunderstorm forecasts in support of the aviation and severe weather communities

• NHC - continued improving absolute error reduction and increased skill in track forecast for critical decision times

• SWPC – Securing budget increase for operational transition; initiated WSA/Enlil model transition

Page 25: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

FY2010 Model Implementations

Page 26: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

26

FY2010 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

SREF-Increase resolution of WRF-NMM, WRF-ARW and RSM to 32 km

- Expand bias correction from CONUS to North America; statistical downscaling using 12 km NAM and using 5km RTMA

10/27/09

HWRF- Structural changes only, no scientific upgrade 11/24/09

GFS/GSI- Post consolidation- GFS code restructuring- New data types added to GSI

12/15/09

Page 27: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

27

FY2010 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

RTOFS- Add Jason-2 altimeter data; incremental upgrade of data assimilation schemes 11/03/09

GEFS- Increase horizontal resolution T126->T190 for 4 daily cycles out to 384H; use 8th horizontal diffusion for all horizontal resolutions; introduce stochastic perturbation scheme

2/16/10

RUC- Extend forecast 18H; provide output every hour of forecast period

2/16/10

NAEFS- Downscaling for Alaska 2nd Qtr FY10

Page 28: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

28

FY2010 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

Global Multi-Grid Wave Model- Generate GRIB2 output earlier in run; increase internal spectral model resolution; increase spectral resolution of point output

2nd Qtr FY10

Hurricane Wave Model- Upgrade to new multi-grid model running global NAH and NPH grids as a single model

2nd Qtr FY10

Page 29: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

29

FY2010 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

GFS- Horizontal Resolution Increase to T574 (27 km) with upgraded physics package

3rd Qtr FY10

HWRF- Couple with HYCOM 3rd Qtr FY09

NAEFS- Inclusion of FNMOC Ensembles 4th Qtr FY10

GEFS- 3-D mask for ET with rescaling, auto adjust stochastic perturbations

4th Qtr FY10

RUC - WRF Based 4th Qtr FY10

Page 30: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

30

FY2010 Implementations

Change Planned Actual

RTMA- CONUS upgrade to 2.5 km, AK 3 km- Shift AK RTMA Grid

4th Qtr FY104th Qtr FY10

AQM- Extended CONUS AQFS (ozone) to HI- CONUS dust &/or smoke

3rd Qtr FY103rd Qtr FY10

HYSPLIT- CONUS dust 3rd Qtr FY10

Wave Ensemble- Combine FNMOC & NCEP wave models- Extend NCEP wave model to 10 days

3rd Qtr FY10

HI-Res Window- Upgrade WRF model, add Guam, turn off RSM for HI 4th Qtr FY10

Page 31: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

FY2010 Budget Information

Page 32: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

32

NCEP Historical Base Funding

(Direct Appropriation)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fiscal Year

$ in

Mil

lion

s

* Another $10-$15M

Other Funding Sources

$106.9M

Page 33: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

33

New Building Status

• Work stoppage in December 2008 when 75% complete• Developer filed Federal lawsuit to recover “damages” from U.S.

Government• Developer filed for bankruptcy, June 2009 (in County Court)• Receiver appointed by County Court in August 2009 and has taken

over security, dehumidification services and repaired water leaks• GSA continuing negotiations with Receiver to

enable construction of facility to be completed

• Federal lawsuit heard on January 11, 2010; judgment expected in February

• Most optimistic schedule shows work resuming in July 2010 and NCWCP ready for occupancy in July 2011

Page 34: Response to NCEP Reviews/ NCEP Update

34

Summary

• Positioning NCEP to respond to review in most positive, timely manner

• Working an aggressive model implementation schedule – addressing the “Drop Out” issue

• Hopeful on new building issue, but still in the courts