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

4

91 Q1 91 Q3 92 Q1 92 Q3 93 Q1 93 Q3 94 Q1 94 Q3 95 Q1 95 Q3 96 Q1 96 Q3 97 Q1 97 Q3 98 Q1 98 Q3 99 Q1 99 Q3 00 Q1 00 Q3 01 Q1 01 Q3 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

50 100 150 200 250 300

Total participation in the ALADIN project Total participation in the ALADIN project

Evolution of the quarterly manpower

DEPORTED-ALAT DEPORTED LACE/PRAGUE-ALAT LACE/PRAGUE TOULOUSE-ALAT TOULOUSE Yearly average

Quarter Person.Month

5

FRANCE 46% CZECH REP 9% BELGIUM 10% HUNGARY 3% AUSTRIA 6% SLOVAKIA 2% CROATIA 3% ROMANIA 2% MOROCCO 2% SLOVENIA 3% POLAND 3% PORTUGAL 2% ALGERIA 1% BULGARIA 2% TUNISIA 3% TURKEY 2%

Participation in the ALADIN project in 2013 Participation in the ALADIN project in 2013

Breakdown

• f the

person.months by country

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).

10

Code and model configurations

11

12

ALADIN PAC: roadmap needed for the code development to be concretized at the next ALADIN GA(/HIRLAM Council)

Dynamical core: Scalability/effici ency Physics- dynamics coupling Surface Data assimilation ...- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 MoU4 MoU5

?

Localized A grid Unstructured grids Radiation Turbulence Microphysics/clouds

HFS?

NOT FINALIZED, TO BE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE GA/COUNCIL IN DECEMEBER!!!

To be discussed with CSSI

13

National model domains in the ALADIN consortium

14

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 Météo 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.

Increasing the resolution : Prototype AROME 1.3km at Météo France

AROME1.3kmL90 AROME2.5kmL90 AROME2.5kmL90 HRV observation

Courtesy Yann Seity, see talk of F. Bouyssel during this meeting for more details

Toward 1-km resolution

17

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)

18

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?

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 corrected T2m and S10m (run = 12h, lead time = 42h).

Smet, G., P. Termonia and A. Deckmyn, 2012: Added economic value

• f limited area multi-EPS weather forecasting applications Tellus , A ,

64 , 18901

From science to operations summarized on 1 sheet

activity ALADIN governance Link with HIRLAM Actions undertaken Scientific research CSSI Common work plan No stimulus needed Algorithms (scalability/ efficiency) Scientific validation CSSI Add-hoc discussions during the ASM/workshop Action on ACRANEB2; Physic-dynamics interaction; HARP “phasing” + sanity check MF + CSSI + ACNA Close link with the HIRLAM system PL porting ACNA Meteorological (local) validation LTMs HARMONIE system (Ankara action) END USERS

Different governanc es: split repsonsibili ties, but common tools

New demands

common code

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 . Vãňa, 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)