INSTYTUT METEOROLOGIII GOSPODARKI WODNEJ

INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGYAND WATER MANAGEMENT

TITLE : IMPLEMENTATION OF MOSAIC APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

AUTHORS: Grzegorz Duniec, Andrzej Mazur

DATE: 05.09.2010

2

1. Validation of SUBS – done for ver. 4.8 of COSMO MODEL

2. Estimation of the influence of SUBS on model results for different parameterization of physics and numerics

StudiesIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

3

Numerical schemes• Leapfrog: 3–timelevel HE-VI (Horizontally Explicit – Vertically Implicit)

Integration

• Leapfrog: 3–timelevel semi–implicit

• Runge – Kutta: 2–timelevel HE–VI Integration with irunge_kutta=1 (3-order standard scheme)

• Runge – Kutta: 2–timelevel HE–VI Integration with irunge_kutta=2 (variant scheme with Total Variation Diminishing)

Convection schemes• Kain – Fritsch (1992)

• Tiedtke (1989)

• Modified Tiedtke scheme for shallow convection

Tests setupIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

4

Domain (113x101 grid points, 40 levels, resolution 7km, forecast time horizon 3 hours)Tests setup (cntd.)

IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

5

• Orig – original COSMO ver. 4.8

• Ctrl – control (subs-modified code of COSMO ver 4.8 with no account for subs: nsubs=0)

• Twins – subs modified COSMO ver. 4.8 with nsubs=4, low resolution input data only (nsubs=4, identical subpixels)

• Subs – modified COSMO ver. 4.8, nsubs=4, high–resolution data included

Explanation of abbreviationsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

6

• T2m – air temperature at 2m above groud level

• TD – dew point temperature

• TSO – soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.)

• U10m – zonal wind component, 10m above ground level

• V10m – meridional wind component, 10m above ground level

• Water+ice content of soil layers 1cm down

Resulting fields (selected)IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Dates chosen for tests IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Six different synoptic situations chosen for tests (domain marked with black frame in next six slides)

2009.II.01 (00UTC) low temperature, ground was frozen solid

2009.IV.22 (12 UTC) sunny/fair day

2009.X.16 (00 UTC, 06 UTC) ground covered with snow

2009.XI.04 (12 UTC) windy day with intensive precipitation

2009.XI.21 (06 UTC) dense fog

and data for previous case with correct formula for derivation of mean qvs to mimic flux averaging 2006.VIII.01 (12 UTC)

8low temperature, ground was frozen solid

Synoptic situation – 01 II 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

9sunny/fair day

Synoptic situation – 22 IV 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

10ground covered with snow

Synoptic situation – 16 X 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

11windy day with intensive precipitation

Synoptic sytuation – 04 XI 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

12dense fog

Synoptic sytuation – 21 XI 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

MethodologyIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Comparison(for all combinations of

convection and numerical schemes)

• orig vs ctrl

• orig vs subs

• orig vs twins

• twins vs ctrl

• subs vs ctrl

• twins vs subs

Statistics(for all combinations of

convection and numerical schemes)

• correlation

• standard deviation

• covariance

• variance

The ”best” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

The „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained forall combinations – results for water in soil (WSO) for 01 II, 22 IV, 16 X, 21 XI (with and without shallow convection).

correlation coefficient – WSO

leapdef leapdef1 leapsemi leapsemi1 RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1

orig-subs 1 1 1 1 1 1

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1

ctrl-subs 1 1 1 1 1 1

subs-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1

The ”best” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

One of the „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained forzonal wind component (U10) for 22 IV 2009 (without shallow convection).

correlation coefficient – U10 (without shallow convection)

leapdef leapdef1 leapsemi leapsemi1 RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1

orig-subs 0,999 0,998 0,992 0,991 0,999 0,999

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1

ctrl-subs 0,999 0,999 0,992 0,991 0,999 0,999

subs-twins 0,999 0,999 0,992 0,991 0,999 0,999

The ”best” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

The „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained fordew point temperature (TD) for 01 II 2009 (with shallow convection).

correlation coefficient – TD (with shallow convection)

leapdef leapsemi RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 1 1 1 1

orig-subs 0,999 0,998 0,999 0,999

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 1 1 1 1

ctrl-subs 0,999 0,998 0,999 0,999

subs-twins 0,999 0,998 0,999 0,999

The ”worst” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

One of the „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained fororig vs. twins, ctrl vs. twins, subs vs. twins for air temperature for 04 XI 2009:

correlation coefficient – T2M (without shallow convection)

leapdef leapsemi RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 0,026 0,049 0,026 0,026

orig-subs 0,999 0,992 0,999 1

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 0,026 0,049 0,026 0,026

ctrl-subs 0,999 0,993 1 1

subs-twins 0,026 0,057 0,027 0,028

The ”worst” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

One of the „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for orig vs. twins, ctrl vs. twins, subs vs. twins for air temperature for 04 XI 2009:

correlation coefficient – T2M (with shallow convection)

leapdef leapsemi RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 0,020 0,037 0,024 0,024

orig-subs 1 0,997 1 1

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 0,020 0,037 0,024 0,024

ctrl-subs 1 0,997 1 1

subs-twins 0,020 0,044 0,026 0,026

The ”worst” configurations and resultsIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

The „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained forleapsemi – orig, ctrl and subs vs. twins – results for soil temperature for 16 X 2009:

correlation coefficient – TSO (without shallow convection)

leapdef leapdef1 leapsemi leapsemi1 RungeKutta1

RungeKutta2

orig-twins 1 1 0,85 1 1 1

orig-subs 0,998 0,998 0,997 0,997 0,998 0,998

orig-ctrl 1 1 1 1 1 1

ctrl-twins 1 1 0,85 1 1 1

ctrl-subs 0,998 0,998 0,997 0,996 0,998 0,998

subs-twins 0,997 0,998 0,85 0,996 0,998 0,998

Two bugs in cosmo-subs detected (Corrected by Annika Schomburg) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

1. The major bug is in the computation of the effective qv_s (specific humidity at the surface):

atmh

h

atmisnhs qvK

KqvqvK

qv

,,

atm

h

atmisnhs qv

KqvqvK

qv

,,

wrong formula

correct formula

2. The second error is not important for the model run itself, only for some of the output variables. In the module near_surface.f90 there is a loop over ns=1:nsubs1, which, by mistake, includes some of the output variables like rain_con, which are summed up too many times due to this loop. To correct this bug one can just exchange the single large loop by smaller loops only for those variables where necessary.

Results with wrong formula for 1 VIII 2006 (example)IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

correlation coefficient – zonal wind component

leapdef leapsemi leapsemi1 Runge-Kutta1 Runge-Kutta1.1 RungeKutta2 RungeKutta2.1

orig-twins 0,89 0,89 0,92 0,98 0,91 0,88 0,91

orig-subs 0,88 0,85 0,88 0,41 0,92 0,42 0,92

subs-twins 0,99 0,97 0,98 0,21 0,99 0,21 0,99

Results with correct formula for 1 VIII 2006 (example)IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

correlation coefficient – zonal wind component

leapdef leapsemi leapsemi1 RungeKutta1 RungeKutta1.1 RungeKutta2 RungeKutta2.1

orig-twins 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

orig-subs 0,994 0,979 0,980 0,995 0,996 0,995 0,996

subs-twins 0,994 0,979 0,980 0,995 0,996 0,995 0,996

The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.)

CORRELATION: 0,85DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIG AND TWINS (K)

The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.)

CORRELATION: 0,85DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.)

CORRELATION: 0,85DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CTRL AND TWINS (K)

The ”best” configurations and results – 22 IV 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Zonal component wind (U10) without shallow convection

CORRELATION: 0,991DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

The ”best” configurations and results – 01 II 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Dew point temperature (TD) (with shallow convection)

CORRELATION: 0,998DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

The ”worst” configurations and results – 04 XI 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Air temperature at 2 m (T2M) (without shallow convection)

CORRELATION: 0,026DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

The ”worst” configurations and results – 04 XI 2009IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Air temperature at 2 m (T2M) (with shallow convection)

CORRELATION: 0,020DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CTRL AND TWINS (K)

Results for 1 VIII 2006 with wrong formulaIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Zonal wind component (U10)

CORRELATION: 0,21DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

Results for 1 VIII 2006 with correct formulaIMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

Zonal wind component (U10)

CORRELATION: 0,995DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

Summary

IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

• Extended tests of MOSAIC4COSMO implentation was performed.

• Miscellaneous combinations of various numerical schemes and physical parameterizations were tested for six different synoptic situations

• Except for November 4th, 2009, correlation between results for selected meteorological fields is quite good (from 0.85 to ~1)

• Numerical errors (esp. in data preparation) seem to be a reason for poor correlation for November 4th, 2009

Plans

IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

1. We want to test two new data sets with very interesting meteorological situation(s): - 15 VIII 2008 –very strong thunderstorm,

- May 2010 – very intensive precipitation.

2. We intend to check an influence of subs and twins on: - moisture flux,

- heat flux,

- microstructure of Stratus- and Stratocumulus clouds (e.g. liquid water content or ice content, esp. in winter),

- cloud cover with Stratus- or Stratocumulus clouds,

- precipitation intensity,

- height of cloud base for Stratus- and Stratocumulus clouds,

- microstructure of fog layers,

- structure of boundary layer…

3. If there will be an interest to – maybe to go for tile approach…

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONAUTHORS: Grzegorz Duniec

01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61phone: +48 (22) 56 94 131grzegorz.duniec@imgw.plAndrzej Mazur01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61phone: +48 (22) 56 94 134andrzej.mazur@imgw.pl