Use of adjoint sensitivity analysis to diagnose the CMC global analysis performance: A case study

被引:13
作者
Laroche, S
Tanguay, M
Zadra, A
Morneau, J
机构
[1] Meteorol Serv Canada, Meteorol Res Branch, Dorval, PQ H9P 1J3, Canada
[2] Meteorol Serv Canada, Canadian Meteorol Ctr, Dorval, PQ H9P 1J3, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.3137/ao.400404
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
The sensitivity of forecast errors to initial conditions obtained from the adjoint of a numerical weather prediction model provides new insights into the analysis errors responsible for poor short-range to medium-range forecasts. In recent years, we have developed a sensitivity analysis system based on the tangent linear and adjoint of the Global Environmental Multiscale model, in which an iterative procedure minimizing the short-range forecast errors leads to the so-called key analysis errors. These errors are dominated by a small number of atmospheric structures, those growing the most rapidly. The algorithm has proven very useful in understanding improvements to the three-dimensional variational data assimilation (3D-Var) system implemented in the Canadian Meteorological Centre operational suite in December 2001. The main difference between the old and the new 3D-Var systems is the assimilation of temperature and surface pressure from surface and upper air stations as opposed to geopotential heights, additional Tiros Operational Vertical Sounder channels, new sources of observations such as temperature observations from aircraft, and wind and temperature from dropsondes. In this paper, we examine key analysis errors of the old 3D-Var analysis, which led to a very poor 3-day forecast of a severe winter storm that struck eastern Canada on 10 February 2001. In this case, the same 3-day forecast from the new 3D-Var analysis is much better. We compare the difference between the two 3D-Var analyses and the key analysis errors. We find that the main key analysis errors, in terms of potential vorticity, is located along the west shore of southern California and is characterized by a strong baroclinic structure that has its maximum amplitude in the upper part of the troposphere. The difference between the two analyses is three times more energetic than the key analysis errors and its structure is much more barotropic in the troposphere. However, we show that the large improvement in the new 3D-Var analysis stems mainly from the reduction of the analysis errors that project onto the key analysis structures.
引用
收藏
页码:423 / 443
页数:21
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] Variational quality control
    Andersson, E
    Järvinen, H
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1999, 125 (554) : 697 - 722
  • [2] Badger J, 2001, J ATMOS SCI, V58, P38, DOI 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<0038:SIVPAM>2.0.CO
  • [3] 2
  • [4] Chouinard C., 2001, 14 C NUM WEATH PRED, P14
  • [5] Cote J, 1998, MON WEATHER REV, V126, P1373, DOI 10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<1373:TOCMGE>2.0.CO
  • [6] 2
  • [7] A STRATEGY FOR OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF 4D-VAR, USING AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH
    COURTIER, P
    THEPAUT, JN
    HOLLINGSWORTH, A
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1994, 120 (519) : 1367 - 1387
  • [8] ERRICO RM, 1992, MON WEATHER REV, V120, P1644, DOI 10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120<1644:SAUAAO>2.0.CO
  • [9] 2
  • [10] FARRELL BF, 1989, J ATMOS SCI, V46, P1193, DOI 10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046<1193:OEOBW>2.0.CO