U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction Issues

[baroclinic_instability]

This blog post by Mr. Cliff Mass, a well known and somewhat outspoken professor at the Univ. of Washington, has been circulating around the net. I am interested on what dtk has to say about this. Also worth inciting discussion among everyone here since we all use the guidance discussed here. Seems that, while Cliff Mass is a very intelligent man, he seems to simplfiy the problem too much.

http://cliffmass.blo...al-weather.html

The U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Numerical Weather Prediction: Part I

It's a national embarrassment. It has resulted in large unnecessary costs for the U.S. economy and needless endangerment of our citizens. And it shouldn't be occurring.

What am I talking about? The third rate status of numerical weather prediction in the U.S. It is a huge story, an important story, but one the media has not touched, probably from lack of familiarity with a highly technical subject. And the truth has been buried or unavailable to those not intimately involved in the U.S. weather prediction enterprise. This is an issue I have mentioned briefly in previous blogs, and one many of you have asked to learn more about. It's time to discuss it.

Weather forecasting today is dependent on numerical weather prediction, the numerical solution of the equations that describe the atmosphere. The technology of weather prediction has improved dramatically during the past decades as faster computers, better models, and much more data (mainly satellites) have become available.

Supercomputers are used for numerical weather prediction U.S. numerical weather prediction has fallen to third or fourth place worldwide, with the clear leader in global numerical weather prediction (NWP) being the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF). And we have also fallen behind in ensembles (using many models to give probabilistic prediction) and high-resolution operational forecasting. We used to be the world leader decades ago in numerical weather prediction: NWP began and was perfected here in the U.S. Ironically, we have the largest weather research community in the world and the largest collection of universities doing cutting-edge NWP research (like the University of Washington!). Something is very, very wrong and I will talk about some of the issues here. And our nation needs to fix it.

But to understand the problem, you have to understand the competition and the players. And let me apologize upfront for the acronyms.

In the U.S., numerical weather prediction mainly takes place at the National Weather Service's Environmental Modeling Center (EMC), a part of NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction). They run a global model (GFS) and regional models (e.g., NAM).

The Europeans banded together decades ago to form the European Center for Medium-Range Forecasting (ECMWF), which runs a very good global model. Several European countries run regional models as well.

The United Kingdom Met Office (UKMET) runs an excellent global model and regional models. So does the Canadian Meteorological Center (CMC).

There are other major global NWP centers such as the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA), the U.S. Navy (FNMOC), the Australian center, one in Beijing, among others. All of these centers collect worldwide data and do global NWP.

The problem is that both objective and subjective comparisons indicate that the U.S. global model is number 3 or number 4 in quality, resulting in our forecasts being noticeably inferior to the competition. Let me show you a rather technical graph (produced by the NWS) that illustrates this. This figure shows the quality of the 500hPa forecast (about halfway up in the troposphere--approximately 18,000 ft) for the day 5 forecast. The top graph is a measure of forecast skill (closer to 1 is better) from 1996 to 2012 for several models (U.S.--black, GFS; ECMWF-red, Canadian: CMC-blue, UKMET: green, Navy: FNG, orange). The bottom graph shows the difference between the U.S. and other nation's model skill.

You first notice that forecasts are all getting better. That's good. But you will notice that the most skillful forecast (closest to one) is clearly the red one...the European Center. The second best is the UKMET office. The U.S. (GFS model) is third...roughly tied with the Canadians.

Here is a global model comparison done by the Canadian Meteorological Center, for various global models from 2009-2012 for the 120 h forecast. This is a plot of error (RMSE, root mean square error) again for 500 hPa, and only for North America. Guess who is best again (lowest error)?--the European Center (green circle). UKMET is next best, and the U.S. (NCEP, blue triangle) is back in the pack.

Lets looks at short-term errors. Here is a plot from a paper by Garrett Wedam, Lynn McMurdie and myself comparing various models at 24, 48, and 72 hr for sea level pressure along the West Coast. Bigger bar means more error. Guess who has the lowest errors by far? You guessed it, ECMWF.

I could show you a hundred of these plots, but the answers are very consistent. ECMWF is the worldwide gold standard in global prediction, with the British (UKMET) second. We are third or fourth (with the Canadians). One way to describe this, is that the ECWMF model is not only better at the short range, but has about one day of additional predictability: their 8 day forecast is about as skillful as our 7 day forecast. Another way to look at it is that with the current upward trend in skill they are 5-7 years ahead of the U.S.

Most forecasters understand the frequent superiority of the ECMWF model. If you read the NWS forecast discussion, which is available online, you will frequently read how they often depend not on the U.S. model, but the ECMWF. And during the January western WA snowstorm, it was the ECMWF model that first indicated the correct solution. Recently, I talked to the CEO of a weather/climate related firm that was moving up to Seattle. I asked them what model they were using: the U.S. GFS? He laughed, of course not...they were using the ECMWF.

A lot of U.S. firms are using the ECMWF and this is very costly, because the Europeans charge a lot to gain access to their gridded forecasts (hundreds of thousands of dollars per year). Can you imagine how many millions of dollars are being spent by U.S. companies to secure ECMWF predictions? But the cost of the inferior NWS forecasts are far greater than that, because many users cannot afford the ECMWF grids and the NWS uses their global predictions to drive the higher-resolution regional models--which are NOT duplicated by the Europeans. All of U.S. NWP is dragged down by these second-rate forecasts and the costs for the nation has to be huge, since so much of our economy is weather sensitive. Inferior NWP must be costing billions of dollars, perhaps many billions.

The question all of you must be wondering is why this bad situation exists. How did the most technologically advanced country in the world, with the largest atmospheric sciences community, end up with third-rate global weather forecasts? I believe I can tell you...in fact, I have been working on this issue for several decades (with little to show for it). Some reasons:

1. The U.S. has inadequate computer power available for numerical weather prediction. The ECMWF is running models with substantially higher resolution than ours because they have more resources available for NWP. This is simply ridiculous--the U.S. can afford the processors and disk space it would take. We are talking about millions or tens of millions of dollars at most to have the hardware we need. A part of the problem has been NWS procurement, that is not forward-leaning, using heavy metal IBM machines at very high costs.

2. The U.S. has used inferior data assimilation. A key aspect of NWP is to assimilate the observations to create a good description of the atmosphere. The European Center, the UKMET Office, and the Canadians using 4DVAR, an advanced approach that requires lots of computer power. We used an older, inferior approach (3DVAR). The Europeans have been using 4DVAR for 20 years! Right now, the U.S. is working on another advanced approach (ensemble-based data assimilation), but it is not operational yet.

3. The NWS numerical weather prediction effort has been isolated and has not taken advantage of the research community. NCEP's Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) is well known for its isolation and "not invented here" attitude. While the European Center has lots of visitors and workshops, such things are a rarity at EMC. Interactions with the university community have been limited and EMC has been reluctant to use the models and approaches developed by the U.S. research community. (True story: some of the advances in probabilistic weather prediction at the UW has been adopted by the Canadians, while the NWS had little interest). The National Weather Service has invested very little in extramural research and when their budget is under pressure, university research is the first thing they reduce. And the U.S. NWP center has been housed in a decaying building outside of D.C.,one too small for their needs as well. (Good news... a new building should be available soon).

4. The NWS approach to weather related research has been ineffective and divided. The governmnent weather research is NOT in the NWS, but rather in NOAA. Thus, the head of the NWS and his leadership team do not have authority over folks doing research in support of his mission. This has been an extraordinarily ineffective and wasteful system, with the NOAA research teams doing work that often has a marginal benefit for the NWS.

5. Lack of leadership. This is the key issue. The folks in NCEP and NWS leadership have been willing to accept third-class status, providing lots of excuses, but not making the fundamental changes in organization and priority that could deal with the problem.

This note is getting long, so I will wait to talk about the other problems in the NWS weather modeling efforts, such as our very poor ensemble (probabilistic) prediction systems. One could write a paper on this...and I may.

I should stress that I am not alone in saying these things. A blue-ribbon panel did a review of NCEP in 2009 and came to similar conclusions (found here). And these issues are frequently noted at conferences, workshops, and meetings.

Let me note that the above is about the modeling aspects of the NWS, NOT the many people in the local forecast offices. This part of the NWS is first-rate. They suffer from inferior U.S. guidance and fortunately have access to the ECMWF global forecasts. And there are some very good people at NCEP that have lacked the resources required and suitable organization necessary to push forward effectively.

This problem at the National Weather Service is not a weather prediction problem alone, but an example of a deeper national malaise. It is related to other U.S. issues, like our inferior K-12 education system. Our nation, gaining world leadership in almost all areas, became smug, self-satisfied, and a bit lazy. We lost the impetus to be the best. We were satisfied to coast. And this attitude must end...in weather prediction, education, and everything else... or we will see our nation sink into mediocrity.

The U.S. can reclaim leadership in weather prediction, but I am not hopeful that things will change quickly without pressure from outside of the NWS. The various weather user communities and our congressional representatives must deliver a strong message to the NWS that enough is enough, that the time for accepting mediocrity is over. And the Weather Service requires the resources to be first rate, something it does not have at this point.

Part II will discuss the problems with ensemble and high-resolution numerical weather prediction in the U.S.

[nrgjeff]

Thanks for sharing. Yes in the private sector they just go straight to the ECMWF. Even non-mets know it is better. I know gas traders that don't even look at the GFS. They blow off vendor forecasts based on the GFS. They just ask, what about the Euro? Yep, from education to NWP it does sound like the 1980s GM effect across the USA. NWP is cheap compared to other budget issues, especially in light of economic benefits. We need to get it together!

[isohume]

Haha..."a national embarrassment". A bit dramatic. I've seen the EC and GFS both fail to the same degree operationally depending on the pattern.

[donsutherland1]

I have some significant disagreements with Dr. Mass.

While it is true that the GFS typically has lower skill scores than the ECMWF beyond the near-term e.g., Day 5, the difference is not so large that it justifies Dr. Mass's exaggeration. Numerical weather prediction in the U.S. is not "third rate" and the state of U.S. modeling is not a "national embarrassment." In reality, Dr. Mass is simply decrying the persistent modest skill disadvantage vis-a-vis the ECMWF and blowing that situation out of proportion.

He also describes the UKMET models and CMC models as "excellent" even as the skill score differential between those models and the GFS is quite small: http://www.emc.ncep....gmb/STATS_vsdb/. His posted charts also go back prior to upgrades in both the GFS and ECMWF, hence part of his argument compares yesterday's models, only.

And, of course, if one reads further, one finds Dr. Mass has been on a crusade of sorts. However, he lets his passion get the better part of him. For example, he blames NWS procurement for inadequate computing power. The real problem has been chronic underfunding that has led to chronic underinvestment in the latest supercomputer technology. In effect, the underfunding has locked NWS into older technology, in some cases. That underfunding has occurred on a bipartisan basis, as the Commerce Department has not been a political priority. Indeed, one former Senator even led a charge to eviscerate the NWS.

The Department of Commerce, of which the NWS is a part, has accounted for less than 0.3% of federal outlays since 1990. But only a portion of that amount goes to the NWS. The core operations, research & facilities and aviation weather services program (rows 798-801 and 833 on the second spreadsheet listed below) averaged just 0.1% (0.119%) of federal outlays since 1990.

Total outlays: http://www.whitehous...ts/hist01z1.xls

Core functions: http://www.whitehous...ets/outlays.xls

He also oversimplifies the data assimilation issue. DTK has discussed the 4DVAR issue in the past. 4DVAR is not a silver bullet. Some of DTK's thoughts can be found at:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1389406

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1384314

DTK also noted that the NOGAPS currently uses 4DVAR data assimilation. The NOGAPS is a perennial poor performer relative to the other global models. The reality is that the modest performance gap is a more complex matter than data assimilation, alone.

Dr. Mass asserts that the NWS and NCEP have suffered from a lack of leadership and have willingly 'accepted third-class status.' The reality is that the NOAA (NWS and NCEP) have never been a political priority despite their importance to public safety and commerce. Defense, major entitlement programs, homeland security have taken far greater significance.

With NOAA's not being viewed as a priority, it is difficult for any NOAA head to persuade Congress to provide the kind of funding necessary for the program to be far more competitive in its investment and research activities. Given the limits of the funding model in place in the U.S., it is not too surprising that the ECMWF charges large sums of money from the private sector for use of its gridded products. ECMWF has developed a funding stream that is less reliant on fiscal policy and less subject to political prioritization in fiscal policy.

Having said all this, there are areas in which I agree with Dr. Mass. Those areas include:

This problem at the National Weather Service is not a weather prediction problem alone, but an example of a deeper national malaise. It is related to other U.S. issues, like our inferior K-12 education system.

U.S. college degree attainment has been falling relative to its international peers, as well as developing countries. IMO, the eroding educational advantage is already impacting U.S. competitiveness. Failure to arrest the long-term decline in relative U.S. educational attainment would have profound adverse implications for the U.S. vis-a-vis its international trading partners and also when it comes to national security. The qualitative edge the U.S. currently enjoys in various technologies would erode and a breakthrough in aerospace, energy, or some other technology could allow another country to leapfrog the U.S. in certain sectors, some of which could be economically or geopolitically critical.

The U.S. can reclaim leadership in weather prediction, but I am not hopeful that things will change quickly without pressure from outside of the NWS.

In the looming era of austerity, it is incumbent on those who understand the vital importance of U.S. competitiveness to press policy makers to look beyond obsolete bromides and lazy status quo thinking. The U.S. needs a long-term national strategy to guide its policy priorities and the assumptions must be as objective as possible. Today, U.S. workers are no longer the most skilled or most competitive in the world. The U.S. is not the best in every sector of the economy. Unpleasant realities e.g., chronic trade imbalances, are not just the result of "unfair practices" but a logical outcome of eroding U.S. competitiveness and a lack of energy supply diversity, which is rooted in declining relative educational attainment and lack of investment. If the U.S. is to escape its current trajectory it will need to:

1. Focus a greater share of its budget on activities that generate future benefits (research & development, education, infrastructure). A society's productive capacity/competitiveness is, in very large part, a function of its past investment in research, innovation, technology, and in fostering a skilled workforce.

2. Focus less of its budget on consumption-related activities (activities that generate no future benefit), even as many of those activities are politically sensitive.

The trade-offs will be tough. However, they will become even more agonizing the longer fiscal consolidation is delayed. Such fiscal turnarounds are possible. Canada is one example. But in the case of the U.S., that fiscal turnaround must be accompanied by a shift in focus that gives greater weight to investment than the U.S. has given in the past.

[Mallow]

Just to clarify... though it's not hugely important, it's odd for me to see him referred to as "Mr. Cliff Mass" here. If you're gonna append a title to his name, it seems logical to append "Dr.", as he does have a Ph. D.

[baroclinic_instability]

Just to clarify... though it's not hugely important, it's odd for me to see him referred to as "Mr. Cliff Mass" here. If you're gonna append a title to his name, it seems logical to append "Dr.", as he does have a Ph. D.

I actually did look briefly to check for sure. I didn't see one, but after this joke of an article, hard to want to give him a "Dr." in front of his name.

[baroclinic_instability]

I have some significant disagreements with Mr. Mass.

While it is true that the GFS typically has lower skill scores than the ECMWF beyond the near-term e.g., Day 5, the difference is not so large that it justifies Mr. Mass's exaggeration. Numerical weather prediction in the U.S. is not "third rate" and the state of U.S. modeling is not a "national embarrassment." In reality, Mr. Mass is simply decrying the persistent modest skill disadvantage vis-a-vis the ECMWF and blowing that situation out of proportion.

He also describes the UKMET models and CMC models as "excellent" even as the skill score differential between those models and the GFS is quite small: http://www.emc.ncep....gmb/STATS_vsdb/. His posted charts also go back prior to upgrades in both the GFS and ECMWF, hence part of his argument compares yesterday's models, only.

And, of course, if one reads further, one finds Mr. Mass has been on a crusade of sorts. However, he lets his passion get the better part of him. For example, he blames NWS procurement for inadequate computing power. The real problem has been chronic underfunding that has led to chronic underinvestment in the latest supercomputer technology. In effect, the underfunding has locked NWS into older technology, in some cases. That underfunding has occurred on a bipartisan basis, as the Commerce Department has not been a political priority. Indeed, one former Senator even led a charge to eviscerate the NWS.

The Department of Commerce, of which the NWS is a part, has accounted for less than 0.3% of federal outlays since 1990. But only a portion of that amount goes to the NWS. The core operations, research & facilities and aviation weather services program (rows 798-801 and 833 on the second spreadsheet listed below) averaged just 0.1% (0.119%) of federal outlays since 1990.

Total outlays: http://www.whitehous...ts/hist01z1.xls

Core functions: http://www.whitehous...ets/outlays.xls

He also oversimplifies the data assimilation issue. DTK has discussed the 4DVAR issue in the past. 4DVAR is not a silver bullet. Some of DTK's thoughts can be found at:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1389406

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1384314

DTK also noted that the NOGAPS currently uses 4DVAR data assimilation. The NOGAPS is a perennial poor performer relative to the other global models. The reality is that the modest performance gap is a more complex matter than data assimilation, alone.

Mr. Mass asserts that the NWS and NCEP have suffered from a lack of leadership and have willingly 'accepted third-class status.' The reality is that the NOAA (NWS and NCEP) have never been a political priority despite their importance to public safety and commerce. Defense, major entitlement programs, homeland security have taken far greater significance.

With NOAA's not being viewed as a priority, it is difficult for any NOAA head to persuade Congress to provide the kind of funding necessary for the program to be far more competitive in its investment and research activities. Given the limits of the funding model in place in the U.S., it is not too surprising that the ECMWF charges large sums of money from the private sector for use of its gridded products. ECMWF has developed a funding stream that is less reliant on fiscal policy and less subject to political prioritization in fiscal policy.

Having said all this, there are areas in which I agree with Mr. Mass. Those areas include:

This problem at the National Weather Service is not a weather prediction problem alone, but an example of a deeper national malaise. It is related to other U.S. issues, like our inferior K-12 education system.

U.S. college degree attainment has been falling relative to its international peers, as well as developing countries. IMO, the eroding educational advantage is already impacting U.S. competitiveness. Failure to arrest the long-term decline in relative U.S. educational attainment would have profound adverse implications for the U.S. vis-a-vis its international trading partners and also when it comes to national security. The qualitative edge the U.S. currently enjoys in various technologies would erode and a breakthrough in aerospace, energy, or some other technology could allow another country to leapfrog the U.S. in certain sectors, some of which could be economically or geopolitically critical.

The U.S. can reclaim leadership in weather prediction, but I am not hopeful that things will change quickly without pressure from outside of the NWS.

In the looming era of austerity, it is incumbent on those who understand the vital importance of U.S. competitiveness to press policy makers to look beyond obsolete bromides and lazy status quo thinking. The U.S. needs a long-term national strategy to guide its policy priorities and the assumptions must be as objective as possible. Today, U.S. workers are no longer the most skilled or most competitive in the world. The U.S. is not the best in every sector of the economy. Unpleasant realities e.g., chronic trade imbalances, are not just the result of "unfair practices" but a logical outcome of eroding U.S. competitiveness and a lack of energy supply diversity, which is rooted in declining relative educational attainment and lack of investment. If the U.S. is to escape its current trajectory it will need to:

1. Focus a greater share of its budget on activities that generate future benefits (research & development, education, infrastructure). A society's productive capacity/competitiveness is, in very large part, a function of its past investment in research, innovation, technology, and in fostering a skilled workforce.

2. Focus less of its budget on consumption-related activities (activities that generate no future benefit), even as many of those activities are politically sensitive.

The trade-offs will be tough. However, they will become even more agonizing the longer fiscal consolidation is delayed. Such fiscal turnarounds are possible. Canada is one example. But in the case of the U.S., that fiscal turnaround must be accompanied by a shift in focus that gives greater weight to investment than the U.S. has given in the past.

As always great thoughts Don. I pretty much agree with all your key points here, and it seems the individual who wrote this article is willing to use his position and authority to essentially make false claims. I am sure he has many reasons to go on this tirade (some of which may include initializing their U of W WRF via the GFS which they try and sell to private companies, etc.), but even the very stats he uses to defend his position don't really tell the whole story he is trying to sell.

[Mallow]

I actually did look briefly to check for sure. I didn't see one, but after this joke of an article, hard to want to give him a "Dr." in front of his name.

He's a character and I wouldn't disagree that he can exaggerate with the best of them, but don't let that fool you. He's a very intelligent guy... he knows his stuff (scientifically speaking).

[Thunder Road]

We read a paper from the BAMS from 1991 by a Dr. Clifford Mass in one of my Met classes. Same guy?

[Rainshadow]

Its kind of odd to blog this after a winter season in which the Euro was not the cat's meow along the East Coast. Sorry for the imbyism but many of its overphased solutions beyond day 3 have not worked well. Even this weekend's system as late as Tuesday its going to be a full day too late (GFS timing going to be alot closer). GFS track errors (yes it was too far east) were smaller with Irene than the Euro. I am not denying overall its a better model, but its not like the GFS is a way distant third and dtk would probably say its pretty darn good given the lack of funding and computer space availability that it runs on.

Spot on as always Don.

[isohume]

Its kind of odd to blog this after a winter season in which the Euro was not the cat's meow along the East Coast. Sorry for the imbyism but many of its overphased solutions beyond day 3 have not worked well. Even this weekend's system as late as Tuesday its going to be a full day too late (GFS timing going to be alot closer). GFS track errors (yes it was too far east) were smaller with Irene than the Euro. I am not denying overall its a better model, but its not like the GFS is a way distant third and dtk would probably say its pretty darn good given the lack of funding and computer space availability that it runs on.

Spot on as always Don.

Agree. Operationally...the GFS is just as valuable as the ECMWF. The GFS is certainly not a "national embarrassment".

Btw...where are Europe's high res and prob models like the WRF, RAP, SREF, HRRR, etc?

[Srain]

Its kind of odd to blog this after a winter season in which the Euro was not the cat's meow along the East Coast. Sorry for the imbyism but many of its overphased solutions beyond day 3 have not worked well. Even this weekend's system as late as Tuesday its going to be a full day too late (GFS timing going to be alot closer). GFS track errors (yes it was too far east) were smaller with Irene than the Euro. I am not denying overall its a better model, but its not like the GFS is a way distant third and dtk would probably say its pretty darn good given the lack of funding and computer space availability that it runs on.

Spot on as always Don.

It wasn't just the EC where the Euro was not the 'cat's meow'. We here in the S Plains have seen some wild swings by the 'King Euro' which is a term I see used across the weather boards that suggests some do not fully understand the 'limitations' of any computer generated guidance.

Agree. Operationally...the GFS is just as valuable as the ECMWF. The GFS is certainly not a "national embarrassment".

Btw...where are Europe's high res and prob models like the WRF, RAP, SREF, HRRR, etc?

+1

[dtk]

Its kind of odd to blog this after a winter season in which the Euro was not the cat's meow along the East Coast. Sorry for the imbyism but many of its overphased solutions beyond day 3 have not worked well. Even this weekend's system as late as Tuesday its going to be a full day too late (GFS timing going to be alot closer). GFS track errors (yes it was too far east) were smaller with Irene than the Euro. I am not denying overall its a better model, but its not like the GFS is a way distant third and dtk would probably say its pretty darn good given the lack of funding and computer space availability that it runs on.

Spot on as always Don.

I'm hesitant to say too much regarding this topic (I don't want to get myself into trouble)....Dr. Mass has been on this crusade for as long as I've known of him.

Don S.: Thanks for the thoughtful comments....you said many of the things I would have tried to say (and did so much more eloquently than I could have).

I don't really need to get into the whole 4DVAR thing again (we do have plenty of 4D research going on right now, both traditional and ensemble based, by the way)

For whatever it is worth: Dr. Mass would not be able to run his "cutting edge research" at UWash without us (where would he get his boundary conditions in a timely manner? where do the processed observation files come from?).

Furthermore, the notion that we (EMC) do not collaborate with the research community is ludicrous. Two examples: HFIP (and lots of activity going on regarding HWRF), and the entire Hybrid Data Assimilation project (we are working directly with folks from NOAA/ESRL, OU, and collaborating internationally). It's also ironic he chose to single out our use of IBM, considering that the UKMO and ECMWF (the gold standard) both use an IBM power series cluster (just like we have now). Yes, we (EMC) need to do a better job still of reaching out and working with the university and research community.....but this does not come free for us (I/we spend a L O T of time helping out others get access to, work with, and run our codes.....sometimes with little/no return on that investment).

[WXheights]

The salient points of the comments that follow need to be included, but I'm glad there is some provoking and attention getting so long as it is not harmful. From a operational forecasting perspective, the sooner we not deny any failings and pool resources to better the NWP products the better. Ivestment in edfucation and prioritising investment infrastructure is all too important. Without getting too political here - this goes up against some mighty strong ingnorant head winds in scince in general of late.

[MN Transplant]

Cliff is back for Round 2, focusing on computing resources.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-has-fallen-behind-in-numerical.html

[isohume]

Cliff is back for Round 2, focusing on computing resources.

http://cliffmass.blo...-numerical.html

Haha...Mr Dramatic is back at it. He should work for WeatherBell. "Enough is enough".

[das]

Cliff is back for Round 2, focusing on computing resources.

http://cliffmass.blo...-numerical.html

Ugh. It's one thing to say we need more computing power using in-situ systems as the basis of the argument. It's another to flatly ignore the research and development work going on to ready nextgen NWP systems. His proposed fix to throw more processing power (and $$) at the problem is fundamentally naive and ignores the direction that graphically-intensive high-performance computing research is going.

The only useful piece of information in either of his blog posts was the link to Dr. Hammill's white paper. Here's the UCAR independent review from 6 months later saying basically the same thing. http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/director/ucar_reports/EMC_Report_UCAR_Final.pdf

[Jim Marusak]

the computer power will help some. but where that power comes from may be a different matter. I know in the latest AMS bulletin, they were describing how with the latest graphics cards, they were able to take advantage of the baracuda architecture to actually start cloud modeling. how long until we can start using them in a bit of a daisy-chaining of them and start running big-time models in a similar type of style?

and as for the 4-d var stuff, i remember from a TCAMS meeting a few months ago where NCEP, to overcome the input and CPU disparities, have come up with a modified 3-d/4d var hybrid that can get them back to a nearly level playing field with the ECMWF while using less processing power than a full-on 4-d var. and some of the scores were looking fairly good. so if anything, they are trying. but when penn state and the U of M have better computing mainframes than NCEP, it doesn't help competativeness any. but there is a new computing facility that is almost done out by the U of Md campus that's supposed to add some extra HP (figuratively speaking) to the mix.

[CoastalWx]

Its kind of odd to blog this after a winter season in which the Euro was not the cat's meow along the East Coast. Sorry for the imbyism but many of its overphased solutions beyond day 3 have not worked well. Even this weekend's system as late as Tuesday its going to be a full day too late (GFS timing going to be alot closer). GFS track errors (yes it was too far east) were smaller with Irene than the Euro. I am not denying overall its a better model, but its not like the GFS is a way distant third and dtk would probably say its pretty darn good given the lack of funding and computer space availability that it runs on.

Spot on as always Don.

I think it was Walt that mentioned the GFS being pretty good with QPF...and I thought it did well at times this winter. I'm with you...not denying it's a better model..but it's flopped a few times up here in SNE..and not just QPF, but with temps as wel during some of our "events."

[somethingfunny]

I would love to send this to my congressman with a note "I wholeheartedly agree with this, consider the situation in Dallas last Tuesday when models were incapable of predicting the localized boundaries that led to the tornadoes until just a few hours before the event. Speak to the Fort Worth NWS office and ask them what kind of assistance they need to improve these kinds of things"

Unfortunately my congressman would look at it and determine NOAA doesn't deserve any funding and the whole thing ought be privatized, because he's bat**** insane. National malaise be damned.

[dtk]

and as for the 4-d var stuff, i remember from a TCAMS meeting a few months ago where NCEP, to overcome the input and CPU disparities, have come up with a modified 3-d/4d var hybrid that can get them back to a nearly level playing field with the ECMWF while using less processing power than a full-on 4-d var. and some of the scores were looking fairly good. so if anything, they are trying. but when penn state and the U of M have better computing mainframes than NCEP, it doesn't help competativeness any. but there is a new computing facility that is almost done out by the U of Md campus that's supposed to add some extra HP (figuratively speaking) to the mix.

We are actually implementing a hybrid 3DVAR-EnKF system soon (it's not a hybrid 3d-4d). It's an improvement, but it's not fair to say that it closes the gap with ECMWF. But yes, we are trying. I am actually personally working on (with collaborators) 4D extensions to the hybrid (not necessarily 4DVAR, but ensemble-based 4D hybrid insted).

We aren't getting a new computing factility in College Park....if you are referring to our new facility, that's our new office building (to house EMC, NCO, CPC, HPC, parts of NESDIS, etc.). Our new computing facilities will be located in Reston and Orlando (primary and backup), I believe. They will be linux-based clusters with intel chips (this is the WCOSS contract award that was recently made public). Despite what has been said about it previously, it WILL in fact give us an increase in computing power (both in speed and capacity), though the exact increase is somewhat unknown (given that we have to port our codes to a new architecture).

Others have already summed up my feelings quite nicely about the blog posts in question.

[am19psu]

We are actually implementing a hybrid 3DVAR-EnKF system soon (it's not a hybrid 3d-4d).

You and I have been talking about this for over a year now. Do we know when "soon" is yet?

[dtk]

You and I have been talking about this for over a year now. Do we know when "soon" is yet?

Well it's been out of our hands for a while (we are at the mercy of available resources, both human and computing, as well as other implementations). We (EMC) have been running in near-real time for quite a while, and NCO has just recently gotten their stuff set up. The last I heard puts the actual implementation date somewhere late-May (the 22nd seems the likely target). Our current process is painfully slow, but that's a whole other thread (or blog post) waiting to happen...

[Ed Lizard]

I would love to send this to my congressman with a note "I wholeheartedly agree with this, consider the situation in Dallas last Tuesday when models were incapable of predicting the localized boundaries that led to the tornadoes until just a few hours before the event. Speak to the Fort Worth NWS office and ask them what kind of assistance they need to improve these kinds of things"

Unfortunately my congressman would look at it and determine NOAA doesn't deserve any funding and the whole thing ought be privatized, because he's bat**** insane. National malaise be damned.

You know even if the GFS ran at the horizontal resolution of the Euro, it probably wouldn't have picked up that subtle outflow boundary, right?

SPC was aware of the boundary, and upgraded the Watch before the first tornadic cell.

[somethingfunny]

You know even if the GFS ran at the horizontal resolution of the Euro, it probably wouldn't have picked up that subtle outflow boundary, right?

SPC was aware of the boundary, and upgraded the Watch before the first tornadic cell.

You can't get anywhere with politicians by telling them the truth.

[Ellinwood]

Rebuttal from the UCAR Community Advisory Committee for NCEP (UCACN) on Part 1:

http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/UCACN/UCACN_response_Cliff_Mass_blog.pdf

[Mallow]

Rebuttal from the UCAR Community Advisory Committee for NCEP (UCACN) on Part 1:

http://www.vsp.ucar....f_Mass_blog.pdf

So it seems like for the most part, Dr. Mass wasn't completely out to lunch, if somewhat out of date. He did miss a couple key points, and exaggerated many others, as he is wont to do. Glad to see that things are improving, though!

[usedtobe]

So it seems like for the most part, Dr. Mass wasn't completely out to lunch, if somewhat out of date. He did miss a couple key points, and exaggerated many others, as he is wont to do. Glad to see that things are improving, though!

Well, he was still mostly wrong in my view. Don S. did a great job summarizing the most salient points. I'm not a big fan of Cliff's. He's always been critical of NMC/NCEP for as long as I can remember first meeting him.

[Mallow]

Well, he was still mostly wrong in my view. Don S. did a great job summarizing the most salient points. I'm not a big fan of Cliff's. He's always been critical of NMC/NCEP for as long as I can remember first meeting him.

Perhaps, but he was also instrumental in getting the Washington Coast radar approved and into operation. And, of course, having him as a professor helps too.