Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

enkf #9

Closed
zhanglei3505962 opened this issue Jun 10, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

enkf #9

zhanglei3505962 opened this issue Jun 10, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@zhanglei3505962
Copy link

No description provided.

@jswhit
Copy link
Contributor

jswhit commented Jun 12, 2020

Was this issue created by mistake? If not, please add more information @zhanglei3505962

hu5970 referenced this issue in hu5970/GSI Mar 3, 2022
Sync master 202112 and added subdomain fv3lam IO
ClaraDraper-NOAA pushed a commit to ClaraDraper-NOAA/GSI that referenced this issue Mar 9, 2023
bug fix on the latest merge of EMC develop and 2mDA
DavidHuber-NOAA pushed a commit to DavidHuber-NOAA/GSI that referenced this issue Jun 22, 2023
Update CI version of ncdiag, merge in develop
@daviddowellNOAA daviddowellNOAA mentioned this issue Aug 22, 2023
9 tasks
@wx20jjung wx20jjung mentioned this issue Sep 4, 2023
6 tasks
ShunLiu-NOAA pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 29, 2023
… (see issue #601) (#614)

Adding code to analyze the siginificant wave heigh in GSI 3D Analysis,
esp. for FV3-LAM model based DA, eg. RRFS-DA, RRFS-3DRTMA. (Also see the
issue in EMC GSI github repository: #601
 Adding I/O for Analysis of Significant Wave Height for 3DRTMA)

<!-- PLEASE READ -->
<!--
Before opening a PR, please note these guidelines:

- Each PR should only address ONE topic and have an associated issue
- No hardcoded or paths to personal directories should be present
- No temporary or backup files should be committed
- Any code that was disabled by being commented out should be removed
-->

**Description**

<!-- Please include relevant motivation and context. -->
Significant Wave Height (hereafter as SWH) is one of the standard
products provided by the operational (2D)RTMA. To continuously provide
the same products in 3DRTMA, the next-generation RTMA, some efforts in
GSI code need to be made in order to analyze the SWH in 3D analysis of
GSI.
<!-- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
-->
The kernel subroutines to assimilate SWH in GSI (such as stphowv.f90,
setuphowv.f90, inthowv.f90, gsi_howvOper.f90 and m_howvNode.f90) already
had been added for (2D)RTMA years ago by Manuel Pondeca, so for this
issue, the code work mainly focus on adding the I/O of SWH in background
and analysis fields for 3DRTMA (esp. RRFS-based 3DRTMA), and some
necessary modifications in background error, options, variables related
to analysis of SWH, etc.
Modified code in GSI:
1. rapidrefresh_cldsurf_mod.f90: adding a few variables related to the
analysis of howv in 3D analysis
2. gsimod.F90: adding namelist options used for analysis of howv in 3D
analysis
3. m_berror_stats_reg.f90: added some code for the special treatment to
the static background error (BE) of howv
4. read_prepbufr.f90: adding code to decode the observation of howv in
prepbufr file when howv is available in firstguess
5. setuphowv.f90: adding code to use obs of howv when howv is available
in firstguess
6. gsi_rfv3io_mod.f90: adding I/O code to read in howv from firstguess
and write out howv into analysis.


<!-- List any dependencies that are required for this change. -->
No dependencies are required for this change.
<!-- Please provide reference to the issue this pull request is
addressing. -->
This PR is addressing the issue
[#601](#601): Adding code to
analyze the siginificant wave heigh in GSI 3D Analysis".
<!-- For e.g. Fixes #IssueNumber -->
Fixes #601

**Type of change**

Please delete options that are not relevant.


- [*] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)



**How Has This Been Tested?**

<!-- Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes and
on the platforms these tests were conducted. -->
- Brief results from ctest (regression test) with the modified code (on
WCOSS2 - Cactus):

 [gang.zhao@clogin07:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -N
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
  Test #1: global_3dvar
  Test #2: global_4dvar
  Test #3: global_4denvar
  Test #4: hwrf_nmm_d2
  Test #5: hwrf_nmm_d3
  Test #6: rtma
  Test #7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens
  Test #8: netcdf_fv3_regional
  Test #9: global_enkf

Total Tests: 9
  Test #1: global_3dvar
[gang.zhao@clogin04:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R global_3dvar
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 1: global_3dvar
1/1 Test #1: global_3dvar .....................   Passed  1631.12 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 1631.14 sec

  Test #2: global_4dvar
[gang.zhao@clogin09:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R global_4dvar
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 2: global_4dvar
1/1 Test #2: global_4dvar .....................   Passed  2462.19 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 2462.23 sec

  Test #3: global_4denvar
[gang.zhao@clogin04:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R
global_4denvar
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 3: global_4denvar
1/1 Test #3: global_4denvar ...................   Passed  1922.43 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 1922.46 sec

  Test #4: hwrf_nmm_d2
[gang.zhao@clogin09:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R hwrf_nmm_d2
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 4: hwrf_nmm_d2
1/1 Test #4: hwrf_nmm_d2 ......................   Passed  1214.10 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 1214.20 sec

  Test #5: hwrf_nmm_d3
[gang.zhao@clogin09:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R hwrf_nmm_d3
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 5: hwrf_nmm_d3
1/1 Test #5: hwrf_nmm_d3 ......................   Passed  736.38 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 736.50 sec

  Test #6: rtma
[gang.zhao@clogin05:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R rtma
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 6: rtma
1/1 Test #6: rtma .............................   Passed  1027.01 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 1027.01 sec

  Test #7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens
[gang.zhao@clogin06:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R
rrfs_3denvar_glbens
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens
1/1 Test #7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens ..............   Passed  484.69 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 484.70 sec

  Test #8: netcdf_fv3_regional
[gang.zhao@clogin03:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R
netcdf_fv3_regional
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 8: netcdf_fv3_regional
1/1 Test #8: netcdf_fv3_regional ..............   Passed  483.08 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 483.11 sec

  Test #9: global_enkf
[gang.zhao@clogin03:build] (feature/3drtma_howv)$ ctest -R global_enkf
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/WaveHgt/develop/build
    Start 9: global_enkf
1/1 Test #9: global_enkf ......................   Passed  488.50 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1

Total Test time (real) = 488.57 sec

- The modified GSI code passed the regression tests (all 9 tasks) on
Hera and WCOSS2 (Cactus).

- adding the analysis of howv only has very trial influences on the
analyses of other variables. Here is the statistics of the differences
of other variables (u/v/t/ps/q/t2m/q2m) from the runs of GSI without
howv vs. with howv (from a testing case 2023-07-12_14:00:00 UTC in 3km
North-American domain):

comparing two netcdf files:
fcst_fv3lam_hyb_betas/INPUT/fv_core.res.tile1.nc
fcst_fv3lam_nodata_noinfo/INPUT/fv_core.res.tile1.nc ...
Variable Group Count Sum AbsSum Min Max Range Mean StdDev
u / 602135550 3926.84 25760.8 -0.1026 0.485788 0.588388 6.52152e-06
0.00115817
v / 620166777 -4891.34 32582.5 -0.835774 0.268402 1.10418 -7.88714e-06
0.00197793
T / 155987083 178.048 6497.51 -0.0246582 0.0384064 0.0630646 1.14143e-06
0.000218737
delp / 19559676 -281.532 3008.29 -0.00292969 0.00219727 0.00512695
-1.43935e-05 0.000183727

comparing two netcdf files:
fcst_fv3lam_hyb_betas/INPUT/fv_tracer.res.tile1.nc
fcst_fv3lam_nodata_noinfo/INPUT/fv_tracer.res.tile1.nc ...
Variable Group Count Sum AbsSum Min Max Range Mean StdDev
sphum / 430707614 0.594287 2.77816 -2.6139e-05 3.1759e-05 5.7898e-05
1.37979e-09 8.03072e-08

comparing two netcdf files: fcst_fv3lam_hyb_betas/INPUT/sfc_data.nc
fcst_fv3lam_nodata_noinfo/INPUT/sfc_data.nc ...
Variable Group Count Sum AbsSum Min Max Range Mean StdDev
t2m / 10665000 43.3899 135.095 -0.00152825 0.00686629 0.00839454
4.06844e-06 5.02866e-05
q2m / 10665000 0.0192553 0.124707 -3.1476e-06 1.77554e-05 2.0903e-05
1.80547e-09 5.89657e-08

It could be seen that the differences are trivial and ignorable.

<!-- Provide instructions so we can reproduce. -->
The regression tests were done by following the instructions of "[GSI
Ctests (regression
tests)](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/wiki/GSI-Ctests-(regression-tests))"
in [GSI Wiki](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/wiki)
<!-- Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration
-->
The modified code had also been tested with a testing case
2023-07-12_14:00:00 UTC for 3km North-American domain
Here is a brief summary of the test results:
1. Here is the analysis increment of Significant Wave Height (aka howv
hereafter): pure 3dvar, static background error of howv is 0.42 meters,
and the de-correlation length scale is 170km.

![HOWV_var_inc_maprll_datll_reg_ncf](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/assets/53267411/4fdeeb82-7258-4344-be69-cce747474312)
2. The following figure shows the distribution of howv in the analysis
(used obs is in green, rejected in red). Obviously the location of used
obs of howv match the area of non-zero analysis increments of howv.

![var_obs_2023071214_howv_maprll_datll_reg_ncf](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/assets/53267411/d4ed6013-cfc8-486e-8f47-db07ec0e4e53)
3. The following figure is the analysis increment of howv with hybrid
envar analysis (using gdas ensemble 80 members and the ensemble weight
is 84%), and the static BE of howv is tuned/inflated. The analysis
increments are very similar to the results from pure 3dvar run (see the
first figure)

![HOWV_hyb_betas016_inc_maprll_datll_reg_ncf](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/assets/53267411/e6e696e8-932b-42ab-9001-3472e970b21c)
4. The last figure shows the analysis increments of howv with hybrid
envar analysis (using gdas ensemble 80 members and the ensemble weight
is 84%), but the static BE of howv is NOT tuned. It can be observed that
the analysis increments is less than the results from the hybrid run
with tuning the static BE of howv. That is because the weight of static
BE (16%) reduced the background error of howv (ensemble of howv is not
available yet), so the impact of obs is decreased.

![HOWV_hyb_betas016_noTune_inc_maprll_datll_reg_ncf](https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/assets/53267411/ca25d068-fc86-4d47-a9d2-46e02ac22dac)

  
**Checklist**

- [*] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [*] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [*] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [*] New and existing tests pass with my changes
- [*] Any dependent changes have been merged and published

**DUE DATE for this PR is 10/5/2023.** If this PR is not merged into
`develop` by this date, the PR will be closed and returned to the
developer.
@ShunLiu-NOAA ShunLiu-NOAA mentioned this issue Oct 4, 2023
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants