Ellinwood Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 http://dd.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/doc/genots/2013/02/07/NOCN03_CWAO_071810___00179 MAJOR UPGRADE TO THE GLOBAL DETERMINISTIC PREDICTION SYSTEM GDPS-VERSION 3.0.0) AT THE CANADIAN METEOROLOGICAL CENTREON WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 13, 2013, STARTING WITH THE 1200 UTC RUN, THECANADIAN METEOROLOGICAL CENTRE (CMC) OF THE METEOROLOGICAL SERVICEOF CANADA (MSC) WILL IMPLEMENT VERSION 3.0.0 OF ITS GLOBALDETERMINISTIC PREDICTION SYSTEM (GDPS), HEREAFTER REFERRED TO ASGDPS-3.0.0. THE MAIN CHANGES OF THIS UPDATE ARE:- CHANGES TO THE 4D-VAR DATA ASSIMILATION SYSTEM: - THE USE OFADDITIONAL REMOTE SENSING DATA: - AN INCREASE IN HORIZONTALRESOLUTION FROM 33 TO 25 KM: - IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE GEM MODELPHYSICS: - AND 1200 UTC RUNS NOW DONE TO 240 HOURS AS FOR 0000 UTCRUNS.OBJECTIVE SCORES DONE IN DEVELOPMENT AND PARALLEL RUN PHASES SHOWIMPROVEMENTS IN THE FORECASTS WITH MOST METRICS THROUGHOUT MOST OFTHE ATMOSPHERE, IN PARTICULAR OVER NORTH AMERICA IN WINTER. THESEIMPROVEMENTS ARE OF AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE USUALLY SEEN ONLY ONCE INA DECADE. A SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION BY OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGISTS ATCMC CONFIRMED THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. OTHER FORECAST SYSTEMS WHICHDEPEND ON GDPS OUTPUT ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE GDPS-3.0.0. CHANGESWERE MADE TO THE REGIONAL DETERMINISTIC PREDICTION SYSTEM (RDPS) TOHARMONIZE IT WITH THE NEW GDPS, AND THE RDPS FORECASTS ARE ALSOIMPROVED AS A RESULT, SO ITS VERSION NUMBER IS ALSO INCREASED TO3.1.0, AND IS HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS RDPS-3.1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 If it actually improves the model substantially that is great news. Thanks Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Interesting, looking forward to 12z tomorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 This is great news Thanks for the info. We rely heavily on global guidance up here in AK where Limited Area Models like the NAM are not nearly as useful (yes...they are even more useless up here than they are in the lower 48 beyond 48 hours). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 This is great news Thanks for the info. We rely heavily on global guidance up here in AK where Limited Area Models like the NAM are not nearly as useful (yes...they are even more useless up here than they are in the lower 48 beyond 48 hours). That's unpossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeznado Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 So now Canada goes to a 4D-VAR system, while the US continues to fall behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted February 12, 2013 Author Share Posted February 12, 2013 So now Canada goes to a 4D-VAR system, while the US continues to fall behind. It's not like we don't WANT to... just need the resources (or at least this is from what I gather from the situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 So now Canada goes to a 4D-VAR system, while the US continues to fall behind. Uhm, they have had a 4DVAR system for quite some time (and were still that much worse than us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 It's not like we don't WANT to... just need the resources (or at least this is from what I gather from the situation). Actually, we a working toward a (hybrid) 4D-Ensemble-Var system (not exactly the same as 4DVAR, since it uses a 4D ensemble in stead of linearized model and its adjoint in the minimization process). Lack of resources (computing AND manpower) is a huge issue (I think there are other threads on this and I have made various comments/replies along the way). The 4D-ensemble-var type development is something also being embraced/pursued by the Canadians and UKMet Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 This looks way more substantial than the microscopic tweaks we've seen out of the GFS/NAM in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 This looks way more substantial than the microscopic tweaks we've seen out of the GFS/NAM in recent years. At least from the tropical/impact weather point of view, it's hard to argue the new radiation scheme introduced to the GFS in 2010 was a microscopic tweak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 At least from the tropical/impact weather point of view, it's hard to argue the new radiation scheme introduced to the GFS in 2010 was a microscopic tweak Haha, well sure. But increasing the resolution significantly, completely overhauling the data assimilation scheme, increasing the amount of satellite data ingested, and altering the physics parameterizations all in one update... comparatively speaking, that makes a simple update to a new radiation scheme look microscopic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Haha, well sure. But increasing the resolution significantly, completely overhauling the data assimilation scheme, increasing the amount of satellite data ingested, and altering the physics parameterizations all in one update... comparatively speaking, that makes a simple update to a new radiation scheme look microscopic. They aren't completely overhauling their DA scheme (they've had 4DVAR for a while now). This implementation is similar in scope to the one we did in 2010 (the one Adam is referring to). That particular change was not just a "simple update to a new radiation scheme", but instead was a resolution increase AND physics overhaul ("all in one update") http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/tin10-15aab_gfs.txt RADIATION AND CLOUD OVERLAP GRAVITY WAVE DRAG HURRICANE RELOCATION NEW PLANETARY BOUNDARY LAYER SCHEME NEW MASS FLUX SHALLOW CONVECTION UPDATED DEEP CONVECTION SCHEME POSITIVE DEFINITE TRACER TRANSPORT SCHEME These types of changes generally occur in coordination with computer upgrade cycles, since they require better (or more) hardware. The Canadians got a big computing upgrade in the last year, and this fits right in with that. The GFS/GDAS also had major upgrade last year to the DA scheme with the hybrid ensemble-var implementation: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/tin12-22gfs_hybridaab.htm Our new operational supercomputer goes live this summer, and accordingly, we are planning a significant change to the GFS (including a new dynamical core [semi-Lagrangian], resolution increase, many physics changes, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The Canadian is getting upgraded, the NoGaps is being replaced... http://www.usgodae.org/navgem.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 They aren't completely overhauling their DA scheme (they've had 4DVAR for a while now). This implementation is similar in scope to the one we did in 2010 (the one Adam is referring to). That particular change was not just a "simple update to a new radiation scheme", but instead was a resolution increase AND physics overhaul ("all in one update") http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/tin10-15aab_gfs.txt RADIATION AND CLOUD OVERLAP GRAVITY WAVE DRAG HURRICANE RELOCATION NEW PLANETARY BOUNDARY LAYER SCHEME NEW MASS FLUX SHALLOW CONVECTION UPDATED DEEP CONVECTION SCHEME POSITIVE DEFINITE TRACER TRANSPORT SCHEME These types of changes generally occur in coordination with computer upgrade cycles, since they require better (or more) hardware. The Canadians got a big computing upgrade in the last year, and this fits right in with that. The GFS/GDAS also had major upgrade last year to the DA scheme with the hybrid ensemble-var implementation: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/tin12-22gfs_hybridaab.htm Our new operational supercomputer goes live this summer, and accordingly, we are planning a significant change to the GFS (including a new dynamical core [semi-Lagrangian], resolution increase, many physics changes, etc.). I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 talking about computing "horsepower" of the NWS compared to the CMC, Japan, the ECMWF, etc; in the US we're at a big power dis-advantage when it comes to weather computing. according to top500.org, as of last october, here's how it ranked... NWS - main model computer: #369 NWS - research side : #138 CMC - #90 Korean Weather Agency: #55 ECMWF: #35 as for who was #1, it was the Department of Energy at Lawrence Livermore I have to admit, what if the NWS has the same mainframe horsepower as say the ECMWF? or even Canada? what would they be able to do model-wise with that? because right now it's like we're going with a big block V-8 against V-10 intercooled twin-turbos and W-16 intercooled quad turbos, if we were using racing equivalents between the met agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohleary Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 talking about computing "horsepower" of the NWS compared to the CMC, Japan, the ECMWF, etc; in the US we're at a big power dis-advantage when it comes to weather computing. according to top500.org, as of last october, here's how it ranked... NWS - main model computer: #369 NWS - research side : #138 CMC - #90 Korean Weather Agency: #55 ECMWF: #35 as for who was #1, it was the Department of Energy at Lawrence Livermore I have to admit, what if the NWS has the same mainframe horsepower as say the ECMWF? or even Canada? what would they be able to do model-wise with that? because right now it's like we're going with a big block V-8 against V-10 intercooled twin-turbos and W-16 intercooled quad turbos, if we were using racing equivalents between the met agencies. And we run about 50 models instead of a handful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And we run about 50 models instead of a handful. Wouldn't it be better to run a handful that were excellent, instead of the 50 that many of are terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Wouldn't it be better to run a handful that were excellent, instead of the 50 that many of are terrible. It's not quite that simple. Many of them serve disparate purposes, such as the RAP and HRW for higher-resolution short-term forecasts. Then you have ensembles in the GEFS and SREF which provide a lot of value to forecasters, even if they aren't as popular with hobbyists/weenies due to their interpretation being more cumbersome and time-consuming. The efficiency of running the global model out to 384 hours four times a day might be up for debate, but even if it were slashed to twice a day, I doubt the resources freed up would be enough for a revolutionary increase in the resolution and computational cost of the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 talking about computing "horsepower" of the NWS compared to the CMC, Japan, the ECMWF, etc; in the US we're at a big power dis-advantage when it comes to weather computing. according to top500.org, as of last october, here's how it ranked... NWS - main model computer: #369 NWS - research side : #138 CMC - #90 Korean Weather Agency: #55 ECMWF: #35 as for who was #1, it was the Department of Energy at Lawrence Livermore I have to admit, what if the NWS has the same mainframe horsepower as say the ECMWF? or even Canada? what would they be able to do model-wise with that? because right now it's like we're going with a big block V-8 against V-10 intercooled twin-turbos and W-16 intercooled quad turbos, if we were using racing equivalents between the met agencies. IMO, NOAA needs a strong director who will advocate effectively for the NWS. Looking at the list, the DOE has the #1, #2, #4, #18, #19, #22, and #47 supercomputers, not to mention additional supercomputers in the top 100. If public safety, aviation safety, and disaster preparedness are high priorities for the NOAA's director, there is no reason that the NWS should not have at least a top 100 supercomputer, even one comparable to the ECMWF's. Other federal institutions have such computers. IMO, given its mission and the need for complex computational workloads, NWS should, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxdudemike Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Where can we find the new 12z data out to 240 hours? I don't see on the met office site I have bookmarked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Where can we find the new 12z data out to 240 hours? I don't see on the met office site I have bookmarked. I'll second this question. Now that it seems like this model could be even more valuable to look at, what's the best link to view this? I see they have a link to it on EWAL but just wondering if there are other places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Where can we find the new 12z data out to 240 hours? I don't see on the met office site I have bookmarked. I'll second this question. Now that it seems like this model could be even more valuable to look at, what's the best link to view this? I see they have a link to it on EWAL but just wondering if there are other places? http://meteocentre.com/models/models.php?mod=gemglb&map=na&run=12〈=en'>http://meteocentre.com/models/models.php?mod=gemglb&map=na&run=12〈=en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxdudemike Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Yes, thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.