Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test the UFO of ATMS brightness temperature with HAFS #13

Open
XuLu-NOAA opened this issue Jul 18, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Test the UFO of ATMS brightness temperature with HAFS #13

XuLu-NOAA opened this issue Jul 18, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

This is to record the process of assimilating ATMS brightness temperature using JEDI 3DEnVar with HAFS background.

Data processing:

  1. Link gfs.t12z.atms.tm00.bufr_d to ./testinput
  2. Then use $HDASApp/build/bin/bufr2ioda.x /scratch2/NCEPDEV/hwrf/scrub/Xu.Lu/JEDI_Fix/WorkingYaml/bufr_ncep_atms.yaml
    To generate the gfs.t12z.atms_n20.tm00.nc and gfs.t12z.atms_npp.tm00.nc in the testout.
  3. Ready for JEDI DA.

Preliminary Yaml setup
/scratch2/NCEPDEV/hwrf/scrub/Xu.Lu/JEDI_Fix/WorkingYaml/atms_n20_jedi.yaml

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

For bias correction:

  1. Link the gdas.t18z.abias & gdas.t18z.abias_pc from GFS.
  2. Use $HDASApp/build/bin/satbias2ioda.x /scratch2/NCEPDEV/hwrf/scrub/Xu.Lu/JEDI_Fix/WorkingYaml/satbias_converter_atms.yaml to generate the satbias_atms_npp.nc.
  3. Copy satbias_atms_npp.nc as satbias_atms_npp_cov.nc, both are needed by JEDI.
  4. Setup bias correction section in the yaml, /scratch2/NCEPDEV/hwrf/scrub/Xu.Lu/JEDI_Fix/WorkingYaml/atms_npp_jedi_bc.yaml:
    obs bias:
    input file: Data/obs/satbias_atms_npp.nc
    output file: Data/bc/out_satbias_atms_npp.nc
    variational bc:
    predictors:
    - name: constant
    - name: lapseRate
    order: 2
    tlapse: &atms_npp_tlapse Data/obs/atms_npp.tlapse.txt
    - name: lapseRate
    tlapse: *atms_npp_tlapse
    - name: emissivityJacobian
    - name: sensorScanAngle
    order: 4
    - name: sensorScanAngle
    order: 3
    - name: sensorScanAngle
    order: 2
    - name: sensorScanAngle
    covariance:
    minimal required obs number: 20
    variance range: [1.0e-6, 10.0]
    step size: 1.0e-4
    largest analysis variance: 10000.0
    prior:
    input file: Data/obs/satbias_atms_npp_cov.nc
    inflation:
    ratio: 1.1
    ratio for small dataset: 2.0
    output file: Data/bc/out_satbias_atms_npp_cov.nc

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Testing with a single ob test in comparison with GSI. It looks the increment pattern matches at certain model levels, e.g. model level 9:
image
But question is raised for the nearby model levels, where strange increment pattern emerges at level 10:
image
Or the increments switches between positive and negative in JEDI:
image
image
image
image

These increment patterns look suspicious as compared to the GSI patterns. Needs further investigation if from localization? Or try to increase the ensemble size?

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It looks the vertical localization is the issue after the EMC internal discussion with RRFS DA group. Decreasing the vertical localization value from 0.3 to 0.001, the Increment patterns are matching between GSI and JEDI across vertical levels:
image
image
image
image
image

The vertical localization is in sigma level instead of logp according to the discussion NOAA-EMC/RDASApp#53. Needs to figure out a proper value of sigma or using logp in consistent with GSI.
This may also help resolve the inconsistent increment magnitude puzzle in #6

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Somehow in the previous test, although the same ob is reading in, GSI print out different values as compared to JEDI.
image

Further optimize the single ob test by forcing the GSI and JEDI reading in same obs value. The table and vertical increment profile indicates high similarity between the current GSI and JEDI configurations:
image
Horizontal increments are also more consistent:
image
image
image

@XuLu-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Further test with full channels/multiple data DA between GSI and JEDI. I converted the diag files from GSI to nc for JEDI to ensure the same data assimilated. There is a reasonable similarity to conclude that the DA in JEDI is reasonably ready for use.
image
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant