Forecasters meeting The ALADIN consortium: goals and work practices - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Forecasters meeting The ALADIN consortium: goals and work practices P. Termonia Ankara, 10-11 October 2014

Outline ● The ALADIN consortium: what, why, goal? ● Link with HIRLAM ● The model(s): code and configurations ● From science to operations ● Verification and validation ● The goal of this meeting: – a portfolio – write a paper?

Current governance

Person.Month 100 150 200 250 300 50 0 91 Q1 Total participation in the ALADIN project Total participation in the ALADIN project 91 Q3 92 Q1 92 Q3 93 Q1 93 Q3 Yearly average TOULOUSE TOULOUSE-ALAT LACE/PRAGUE LACE/PRAGUE-ALAT DEPORTED DEPORTED-ALAT 94 Q1 94 Q3 95 Q1 95 Q3 96 Q1 96 Q3 97 Q1 Evolution of the quarterly manpower 97 Q3 98 Q1 98 Q3 99 Q1 99 Q3 00 Q1 00 Q3 01 Q1 01 Q3 Quarter 02 Q1 02 Q3 03 Q1 03 Q3 04 Q1 04 Q3 05 Q1 05 Q3 06 Q1 06 Q3 07 Q1 07 Q3 08 Q1 08 Q3 09 Q1 09 Q3 10 Q1 10 Q3 11 Q1 11 Q3 12 Q1 12 Q3 13 Q1 13 Q3 4

Participation in the ALADIN project in 2013 Participation in the ALADIN project in 2013 Breakdown BULGARIA 2% TUNISIA 3% TURKEY 2% of the ALGERIA 1% PORTUGAL 2% person.months POLAND 3% SLOVENIA 3% by MOROCCO 2% country ROMANIA 2% FRANCE 46% CROATIA 3% SLOVAKIA 2% AUSTRIA 6% HUNGARY 3% BELGIUM 10% CZECH REP 9% 5

6

Strategy meeting 2011 ● investment in code design/development/maintenance; ● the replacement of the old ISBA scheme by SURFEX; ● collaboration; ● external funding; ● and to launch an effort to “define”our users and to coordinate a project on addressing the end user requirements.

Convergence with HIRLAM

Previous GA, Tunis, relevant for this meeting The GA approved and asked the ALADIN PM to come back and report on the ● forecasters meeting at the next GA. The Task Force recommended that, for the next few years, the two consortia should ● focus onactions that would bring convergence on system/maintenance to fruition. It also recommended to look at ways that would facilitate minimal convergence at governance level, keeping within the bounds of option 1. The two remaining options could be discussed later on a next programme phase. The GA agreed on going toward a common governance, but not for the next MoUs. ● The GA agreed on common meetings (HAC/PAC as in May 2013, next Council/GA). The GA asked the Task Force (the ALADIN, HIRLAM and LACE PMs, the ● chairpersons of HAC, PAC and CSSI) to set clear directives for the renewal of MoUs, considering still two separate MoUs. The Task Force should identify which points should be addressed in the common parts (to be presented and discussed at the next joint HAC/PAC meeting) and reported at the next GA/Council).

Code and model configurations 10

11

ALADIN PAC: roadmap needed for the code development to be concretized at the next ALADIN GA(/HIRLAM Council) Localized A grid Dynamical core: Unstructured grids Scalability/effici ency Radiation Physics- Turbulence dynamics HFS? Microphysics/clouds coupling ? Surface NOT FINALIZED, TO BE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE GA/COUNCIL IN DECEMEBER!!! Data assimilation ...- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 MoU4 MoU5 12 To be discussed with CSSI

National model domains in the ALADIN consortium 13

Convection permitting vs. convection resolving The current system is built on the mesoscale model is the ALADIN model. ● A decade ago the resolutions started to enter the domain of the convection ● permitting scales (roughly below 5 km). Two approaches were followed with the ALADIN and HIRLAM consortia: ● Convection is (sufficiently well) resolved at 2.5 km so that we do not – need to parameterize it, This led to the AROME model based on the ALADIN NH dynamics with the meso-NH physics, developed in the past by M é t é o France, Seity et al. (2011). Convection should be parametrized in the gray zone. This led to a – multiscale parameterization of deep convection, the so-called 3MT scheme, see Gerard and Geleyn (2005), and Gerard et al. (2009). This leads to the ALARO model . Now we start exchanging parameterizations from one “model” to the other: ● AROME and ALARO can be seen as configurations of one system, HARMONIE . 14

Increasing the resolution : Prototype AROME 1.3km at Météo France AROME1.3kmL90 HRV observation AROME2.5kmL90 AROME2.5kmL90 Courtesy Yann Seity, see talk of F. Bouyssel during this meeting for more details

Toward 1-km resolution

Multi-scale behavior of the prognostic deep convection in the ALARO model with the 3MT scheme Courtesy L. Gerard: Gerard and Geleyn (2005), Gerard (2007), Gerard et al. (2009) 17

Verification/validation? ● Very mutlifaceted ● One can distinguish various aspects: – Scientific validation – Code sanity checks – Meterological validations – Operational quality control (at home) ● Each of them should be addressed, BUT at what level? 18

LAM EPS ● WE ARE PRODUCING EXTRA SKILL ON TOP OF ECMWF! ● We have different EPS systems running: GLAMEPS and LAEF (not time to give details) ● A novel score: Potential Continously Ranked Economic Value (CREV) relative to (sample) climatology of ECEPS ( black full line ), GLAMEPS ( red dashed line ), GLAMEPS-LAEF ( green dotted line ) and ECEPS-GLAMEPS-LAEF ( blue dash dotted line ) for bias Smet, G., P. Termonia and A. Deckmyn, 2012: Added economic value corrected T2m and S10m (run = of limited area multi-EPS weather forecasting applications Tellus , A , 64 , 18901 12h, lead time = 42h).

From science to operations summarized on 1 sheet activity ALADIN Link with Actions governance HIRLAM undertaken Scientific research CSSI Common work No stimulus plan needed Algorithms Scientific CSSI Add-hoc Action on (scalability/ validation discussions ACRANEB2; efficiency) during the Physic-dynamics common ASM/workshop interaction; code HARP “phasing” + sanity check MF + CSSI + Close link with ACNA the HIRLAM system PL Different porting ACNA governanc es: split Meteorological (local) LTMs HARMONIE repsonsibili ties, but validation system (Ankara common action) tools END USERS New demands

Tools (for quality control): APMT, HARP, HARMONIE system tools

From science to operational validations in a scientific paper: R. Hamdi, D. Degrauwe, A. Duerinckx, J. Cedilnik, V. Costa, T. Dalkilic, K. Essaouini, M. Jerczynki, F . Kocaman, L. Kullmann, J.-F . Mahfouf, F . Meier, M. Sassi, S. Schneider, F . V ã ňa, and P . T ermonia, 2014: Evaluating the performance of SURFEXv5 as a new land surface scheme for the ALADINcy36 and ALARO-0 models, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 23–39.

Primary goal for this meeting: Collect cases

Operational tests of the CE flooing case in 2013 ALARO5-AUSTRIA IFS / ECMWF COSMO-EU (DWD) 31.05.2013 00 UTC 01.06.2013 00 UTC 02.06.2013 00 UTC

Operational high resolution vs. global (IFS, ECMWF)

For this week This meeting itself is an experiment (let us try to set a good precedent) ● We will be comparing apples with pears which is difficult and a priori pointless, but ● Together we produce extra skill w.r.t. ECMWF. Can operational forecasting move to ● convection-permitting EPS? The aim is to create a portfolio with cases that can be used by each of the ALADIN members ● to extract information to Address the needs and to make convincing cases for their end users and decision – makers This could be done in the form of folders (which each memebr should finance by – themselves) The case will be catalogued and may steer research – As a secondary goal , we could keep in the back of our mind to aim at writing a scientific ● paper in for instance GMD (see the paper on SURFEX)