-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 153
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
Comments
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
This was referenced Aug 25, 2023
7 tasks
1 task
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.
7 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: