Sensitivity Analysis in Atmospheric Data Assimilation€¦ · 12 NAVDAS: NRL Atmospheric...
Transcript of Sensitivity Analysis in Atmospheric Data Assimilation€¦ · 12 NAVDAS: NRL Atmospheric...
1
Sensitivity Analysis in Atmospheric Data Assimilation
Ron Errico, Ricardo Todling, Nate Winslow, Yanqiu Zhu
Ron GelaroNASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD USA
2
ScatterometerSSM/I Ozone
ATOVS Satwinds Geostationary Radiances
Radiosondes Pilots and Profilers Aircraft
Synops and Ships Buoys
09–15 UTC5 September 2003
The Observing System
3
The observing system
FVGSI 16-Jan-2003 00UTC All data: 1,178,200 observations
(x 100,000)8.44.2
Upper-air virtual temperature
Data Types
Brightness temperatureSurface (2m) pressure
Surface (10m) wind speedUpper-air specific humidity
Upper-air meridional windUpper-air zonal wind
4
Status of satellite data usage in operational NWP
• Satellite observations account for ~90% of all data assimilated in operational data assimilation/forecast systems
• These data account for << 1% of the available observations from lower Earth-orbiting systems
• The gap between the number of available and assimilated satellite observations is likely to widen significantly over the next decade
⇒ Intelligent strategies for data selection and usage must be developed
⇒ Flexible and efficient tools for ascertaining the “importance” of observations are required...
5
Adjoint sensitivity analysis
)( af xx M=1. Consider a model:and a (differentiable) scalar forecast measure: )( fxJJ =
3. The solution is:
jj
i
j
i xJ
x
x
xJ
fa
f
a ∂∂
∂
∂=
∂∂
∑
ixJ a/∂∂ such that:
iii
xxJJ aa
′∂∂
= ∑δ )()( xxx JJJ −′+=Δapproximates
2. Determine
…Estimate the response of model output to possible perturbations of model input
orf
T
a xM
x ∂∂
=∂∂ JJ
Sensitivity of J w.r.t the analysis Adjoint model (transpose of M)
6
Example adjoint sensitivity calculation
FVGCM 24hr Forecast Error Sensitivity 00Z 15 Jan 2004
aθ∂∂J (shaded) aθ basic state (contour)
FVGCM adjoint model with simple physics
24T242
1 eEe=J
Applications: predictability, system monitoring, parameter estimation, adaptive observing…
7
1-Tb
Tb )( RHHPHPK +=
bbba )()( xKHIKyHxyKxx −+=−+=
( ))( bba xyKxx H−+=Analysis problem:
where
Linear analysis problem:
Ta Kyx
=∂∂
b1-T
bT )( HPRHHPK +=
Sensitivity of the analysis to the observations:
where
Data assimilation adjoint theory (Baker and Daley, 2000)
See also Le Dimet et al. 1995, Fourrie et al. 2002, Cardinali 2004(?)
8
We have the sensitivity of the forecast measure to the analysis:
Now, relate the sensitivity of the forecast measure to the observations:
f
T
a xM
x ∂∂
=∂∂ JJ
…and the sensitivity of the analysis to the observations:
Ta Kyx
=∂∂
Combine (1) and (2) to get the sensitivity of the forecast measure to the observations:
a
axy
xy ∂
∂∂∂
=∂∂ JJ
f
TTx
MKy ∂
∂=
∂∂ JJ
(observation space) (model space)
or
(2)
(1)
9
Adjoint of Forecast and Assimilation ProcedureAdjoint of Forecast and Assimilation Procedure
Forecast Model
Forecast(xf)
Analysis(xa)
Adjoint Data Assimilation
System
Observation Impact What is the impact of the observations on reducing forecast error?
AnalyisSensitivity
(∂J/∂xa)
AdjointForecast
ModelObservationSensitivity
(∂J/∂y)
BackgroundSensitivity
(∂J/∂xb)
Observations(y)
Data Assimilation
System
Background(xb)
Assimilation and Forecast ProcedureAssimilation and Forecast Procedure
“End-to-End” Sensitivity in a Data Assimilation-Forecast System
Grad FcstMeasure(∂J/∂xf)
Define FcstMeasure J(xf)
10
Impact of observations on forecast error
The forecast error difference, , is due entirely to the assimilation of observations at 00UTC
30243024 eee Δ=−
We seek an estimate of in terms of sensitivity gradients in observation space…
3024eΔ⇒
Langland and Baker (2004)
OBSERVATIONS ASSIMILATED AT
00UTC
+24h
30e24e
axbx
vx
11
Observation impact equation (Langland and Baker, 2004)
1. Define the energy-weighted scalar error, e.g.:
)()( v24T
v2424 xxExx −−=e
2421
24 eJ =and forecast measure:
(observation space)
30
30
24
243024
3024 ),(
xxxx
∂∂
+∂∂
−=ΔJJe
2. Express in terms of gradients at verification time (exact!):3024eΔ
3. Apply then to obtain the approximate expression at initial time:
⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡∂∂
+∂∂
−=≈Δb
30
a
24Tb
3024
3024 ),(
xxKHxy JJee δ
TM TK
(model space)
12
NAVDAS: NRL Atmospheric Variational Data Assimilation System (3D, 1o lat-lon, 60 levels)
NOGAPS: Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (T79L30)
The analysis procedure:
The forecast model:
⇒ Adjoint excludes moist physics
⇒ Adjoint excludes moist observations, ozone
Results from Langland and Baker, 2004
Diagnosis of observation impact on short-range forecast errors in the Navy’s operational DAS/forecast system
13
Rawinsonde Profiles
Decrease Increase
00UTC 10 Dec 2002
Total Impact = -2.05 J/kg
Langland and Baker, 2004
Observation impact on 3024 ee −
14
ATOVS Temperature Retrievals
Total Impact = -1.06 J/kg
Langland and Baker, 2004
Decrease Increase
00UTC 10 Dec 2002
Observation impact on 3024 ee −
15
Commercial Aircraft Observations
Total Impact = -0.36 J/kg
Langland and Baker, 2004
Decrease Increase
00UTC 10 Dec 2002
Observation impact on 3024 ee −
16
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40 SHEMNHEM
RAOB
ATOVS
SATW
LAND SHIPAIRW
AUSN
3,000,0002,000,0001,000,000
Ob count
J kg-1
June and December 2002
Number of data assimilated at 00UTC
Impact of data on
Observation impact – by hemisphere
Langland and Baker, 2004
3024 ee −
17
Large Impact of Observations in Cloudy Regions
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cloud Cover (% )
Ob
Impa
ct
Fig. 4: Observation impact (average magnitude perobservation, in J kg-1) as a function of model-diagnosed cloud-cover. The “impact” in this figure includes both improvements and degradations of 72h global forecast error. Based on results from 29 June – 28 July 2002.
SATWINDRAOBATOVS
Observation impact – cloud cover correlation
…large impact of observations in cloudy regions….both positive and negative...
Langland and Baker, 2004
18
Observation impact – assimilation system tuning
N. Baker, NRL
Error Reduction (J kg-1)
Global Domain
4842eδ
19
December 2002
J kg -1
nonlinear model forecast differences
estimate using dry adjoint procedure
explains 75% of
• moist observations?
• adjoint model physics?
• nonlinearity?
Remaining 25 %:
Accuracy of observation impact estimate
3024eδ 30
24eΔ3024eδ
3024eΔ
Langland and Baker, 2004
20
Nonlinear analysis problems: GSI
))(())(()( 1T1T dxRdxxBxx −−+= −− δδδδδ HHL
21)()( qq LLL ++= xx δδLMinimize:
⎩⎨⎧
<
≥=
0
002T
11 qq
qLq ρ
…penalty for negative humidity
⎪⎩
⎪⎨⎧
>−
≤=
satsat
satq qqqq
qqL 2T
22 )(
0
ρ…penalty for super saturation
…Consider the incremental variational problem solved in the NCEP grid-point statistical interpolation (GSI) scheme
Development of adjoint GSI requires development of tangent linear algorithm as first step…
21
GSI TLM
Δ GSI
Perturb: all u,v (O-F x 0.1)Response: Tv (level 10)
Tangent linear behavior of the GSI algorithm
100 iterations
22
Δ GSI
Perturb: all Rad (O-F x 0.1)Response: v (level 20)
100 iterations
Tangent linear behavior of the GSI algorithm
GSI TLM
23
Tangent linear behavior of the GSI algorithm
Ratio = rms (TLM)rms (Δ GSI)
q-penalty OFF
Pert = all u,v (O-F x 0.01)
q-penalty ONlevel=15, outerloop=1
24
Δ GSI
Perturb: all u,v (O-F x 0.01)Response: u (level 15)
Tangent linear behavior of the GSI algorithm
80 iterations
q-penalty ON
GSI TLM
25
Δ GSI
Perturb: all u,v (O-F x 0.01)Response: u (level 15)
Tangent linear behavior of the GSI algorithm
80 iterations
q-penalty OFF
GSI TLM
26
Effect of q-penalty on GSI increments
q-inc q-penalty ON Δq-inc (q-penalty ON – q-penalty OFF)
Specific humidity, 00Z 19Jun2004, level=10, outerloop=1, iteration=100
27
Effect of q-penalty on GSI increments
Virtual Temperature, 00Z 19Jun2004, level=10, outerloop=1, iteration=100
TV-inc q-penalty ON ΔTV-inc (q-penalty ON – q-penalty OFF)
28
Status of GSI adjoint development
• Tangent linear version of GSI (autumn release) has been developed and tested extensively for a range of perturbation types...major step toward generation of adjoint.
• Adjoint testing planned for early summer
• Tangent linear system is well behaved (representative of GSI) overall:- good to excellent results for perturbed observations of u, v, T, q, radiance- results improve, especially for q, when penalties for negative moisture/super saturation are removed or reduced- response to ozone perturbations poor (highly nonlinear), but significance is unclear
• Update to March release of GSI underway:- variational QC- begin consolidation of nonlinear and tangent codes
29
General conclusions…so far…
• Adjoint forms of a model and assimilation system allow efficient estimation of analysis and/or observation sensitivity (impact)
- determined with respect to observational data, background fieldsor assimilation parameters, all computed simultaneously
• Sensitivity information should be useful for designing intelligent data selection strategies, and possibly guide future observing system design
- permits arbitrary aggregation of sensitivities, e.g., by data type, channel, location, etc.- information obtained should compensate pain of initial development
• Provide unique insight into model/assimilation system behavior and design
• Complement, but not replace, traditional techniques for estimating observation impact (OSEs, OSSEs)
30
1st order cience questions…
• Trade-offs between assimilating fewer observations with greater individual sensitivity, or more observations with less individual sensitivity
• How best to use observations in cloudy regions
• Whether/how sensitivity information can be utilized effectively for system tuning, e.g., observation error, bias estimation parameters,…
• Under what circumstances the required assumptions and simplifications render results unusable (simplified physics, linearity)
• Whether extremely nonlinear “switches” in forward systems are either necessary or appropriate