Impacts of Dropsonde Observations on Forecasts of Atmospheric Rivers and Associated Precipitation in the NCEP GFS and ECMWF IFS models

IF 3 3区 地球科学 Q2 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Laurel L. DeHaan, Anna M. Wilson, Brian Kawzenuk, Minghua Zheng, Luca Delle Monache, Xingren Wu, David A. Lavers, Bruce Ingleby, Vijay Tallapragada, Florian Pappenberger, F. Martin Ralph
{"title":"Impacts of Dropsonde Observations on Forecasts of Atmospheric Rivers and Associated Precipitation in the NCEP GFS and ECMWF IFS models","authors":"Laurel L. DeHaan, Anna M. Wilson, Brian Kawzenuk, Minghua Zheng, Luca Delle Monache, Xingren Wu, David A. Lavers, Bruce Ingleby, Vijay Tallapragada, Florian Pappenberger, F. Martin Ralph","doi":"10.1175/waf-d-23-0025.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Atmospheric River Reconnaissance has held field campaigns during cool seasons since 2016. These campaigns have provided thousands of dropsonde data profiles, which are assimilated into multiple global operational numerical weather prediction models. Data denial experiments, conducted by running a parallel set of forecasts that exclude the dropsonde information, allow testing of the impact of the dropsonde data on model analyses and the subsequent forecasts. Here, we investigate the differences in skill between the control forecasts (with dropsonde data assimilated) and denial forecasts (without dropsonde data assimilated) in terms of both precipitation and integrated vapor transport (IVT) at multiple thresholds. The differences are considered in the times and locations where there is a reasonable expectation of influence of an Intensive Observation Period (IOP). Results for 2019 and 2020 from both the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) global model show improvements with the added information from the dropsondes. In particular, significant improvements in the control forecast IVT generally occur in both models, especially at higher values. Significant improvements in the control forecast precipitation also generally occur in both models, but the improvements vary depending on the lead time and metrics used.","PeriodicalId":49369,"journal":{"name":"Weather and Forecasting","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Weather and Forecasting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1175/waf-d-23-0025.1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Atmospheric River Reconnaissance has held field campaigns during cool seasons since 2016. These campaigns have provided thousands of dropsonde data profiles, which are assimilated into multiple global operational numerical weather prediction models. Data denial experiments, conducted by running a parallel set of forecasts that exclude the dropsonde information, allow testing of the impact of the dropsonde data on model analyses and the subsequent forecasts. Here, we investigate the differences in skill between the control forecasts (with dropsonde data assimilated) and denial forecasts (without dropsonde data assimilated) in terms of both precipitation and integrated vapor transport (IVT) at multiple thresholds. The differences are considered in the times and locations where there is a reasonable expectation of influence of an Intensive Observation Period (IOP). Results for 2019 and 2020 from both the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) global model show improvements with the added information from the dropsondes. In particular, significant improvements in the control forecast IVT generally occur in both models, especially at higher values. Significant improvements in the control forecast precipitation also generally occur in both models, but the improvements vary depending on the lead time and metrics used.
下探仪观测对NCEP GFS和ECMWF IFS模式下大气河流和相关降水预报的影响
自2016年以来,大气河流勘测一直在凉爽的季节进行实地勘测。这些活动提供了数千个投下探空仪数据剖面,这些数据被吸收到多个全球业务数值天气预报模型中。数据否认实验,通过运行一组排除dropsonde信息的并行预测来进行,允许测试dropsonde数据对模型分析和后续预测的影响。在这里,我们研究了在多个阈值下的降水和综合水汽输送(IVT)方面,控制预报(吸收了dropsonde数据)和拒绝预报(没有吸收dropsonde数据)在技能上的差异。这些差异是在对密集观察期(IOP)的影响有合理预期的时间和地点进行考虑的。欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)模型和国家环境预测中心(NCEP)全球模型对2019年和2020年的预测结果显示,随着下投探空仪增加的信息,预测结果有所改善。特别是,控制预测IVT的显著改进通常出现在两个模型中,特别是在较高的值时。控制预报降水的显著改进通常也出现在两种模式中,但改进取决于前置时间和所使用的指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Weather and Forecasting
Weather and Forecasting 地学-气象与大气科学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
17.20%
发文量
131
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Weather and Forecasting (WAF) (ISSN: 0882-8156; eISSN: 1520-0434) publishes research that is relevant to operational forecasting. This includes papers on significant weather events, forecasting techniques, forecast verification, model parameterizations, data assimilation, model ensembles, statistical postprocessing techniques, the transfer of research results to the forecasting community, and the societal use and value of forecasts. The scope of WAF includes research relevant to forecast lead times ranging from short-term “nowcasts” through seasonal time scales out to approximately two years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信