# Presentation: 024542

## A NAEFS Status Report from CMC

- Fall 2005

*Yves Pelletier, *
*Operations Branch, *
*Canadian Meteorological Center*
*Sept 19, 2005*

## Some CMC-NCEP comments on the development of NAEFS

## Brief review of NAEFS accomplishments 

- (from CMC perspective)

- SHARED VARIABLES
- Winter 2004: common set of variables-levels (See “Appendix 5”)
- April 2004: add 3D humidity variable to “Appendix 5” list
- August 2004: add additional variables to CMC dataset:
- CAPE,  Tmin, Tmax, QPF types (rain, snow, freezing rain and ice pellets)
- September 2004:
- CMC GRIB dataset complete as per Appendix 5 variables (except wave model)
- NCEP freeze limits changes to datasets
- EPS Production at CMC
- Start of CMC Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) parallel run
- CMC data available sooner from 07Z down to 5:45Z daily
- Fall 2005: Start of CMC EPS parallel run with improved members and more data
- MEETINGS
- Nov 2004 NAEFS IOC workshop
- TELECOM
- Sept 2005: NCEP pushes their data to CMC to accelerate CMC retrieval of NCEP data

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSInter-Center Coordination

- Coordinating several centers requires long term thinking and planning

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSDefining list of shared variables, formats

- Any changes to shared system requires extensive planning and coordination
- Define list of shared variables correct as early as possible, changing it later requires effort
- Ensure common data representation (GRIB 1, GRIB 2)
- Consider post-processing data needs when finalizing shared variable list

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSPlanning the Post-Processing of variables & products

- Post-processing of variables requires coordination
- Will there be uniformity of post-processed shared variables and products?
- Will post processed shared variables and products use same “code” for consistency?
- Initial set => NCEP and CMC to use their own internal codes and share data as it is produced by their respective centers.
- Can/Should centers work in a programming environment that can be easily shared?
- Will post-processing tasks be done by a code that is shared by all participants or by having each center use their own “proprietary” tools and code

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSDatasets are large

- Datasets large and getting larger
- CMC’s next update to EPS will deliver
- 3.4 Gb/run x 2 runs/day = 6.8 Gb/day
- Variables at 6hr interval from 000-360 hr
- Each CMC file contains
- OPS: All variables / 2-12hr intervals / 1 member / file
- PAR: All variables / 1-6hr interval / 1 member / file
- This type of packaging facilitates post-processing
- Presently in Grib-1 format

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSGrib-1 to Grib-2 transition plan

- Use of locally defined tables in Grib-1 became necessary
- Locally defined tables require coordination and subject to future changes
- A Grib-1 to Grib-2 transition plan is being developed
- Target dates: early 2006

## CMC’s 23 shared variables for NAEFS(NAEFS “Appendix 5”) (5 (3D) + 10 (2D) + 7 (2D post-processed) + 1 (missing) = 23 variables)

-          GRIB                             CMC   Level(s)
- 3D model sortie variables  ( 5 variables each on 7 pressure levels)
- HGT                               GZ        200, 250, 500,700, 850 , 925, 1000 (hPa)
- TMP                               TT        200, 250,500,700, 850 , 925, 1000 (hPa)
- UGRD                            UU       200, 250, 500,700, 850 , 925, 1000 (hPa)
- VGRD                            VV       200, 250, 500,700, 850 , 925, 1000 (hPa)
- DEPR                              ES       200, 250, 500, 700, 850, 925, 1000 (hPa)
- 2D Surface-based model sortie variables (10 variables)
- TCDC                             NT       SFC (0)
- PWAT                             IH       SFC (0)
- UGRD                           UU       10m (12000)
- VGRD                           VV       10m (12000)
- TMP                               TT         2m (12000)
- DEPR                              ES        2m (12000)
- HGT                                GZ       Eta=1 (12000)
- PRES                              P0        SFC (0)
- PRMSL                          PN        MSL (0)
- APCP                              PR       SFC (0)  Cummulative Total Precipitation
- Post Processed Variables (7 variables available as 2D fields)
- TMIN                              T7        2m (12000)
- TMAX                             T8        2m (12000)
- CAPE                              BE       SFC (12000)
- RN,SN,FR, PE                Cumulative precipitation type amounts calculated using Bourguoin method
- WAM data (Variables to be defined?)
- Wave Model                  Not yet available

## CMC EPS GRIB-1 format files for NCEP(Comparing CMC’s Ops vs. Par runs)

-                         Operational                                            Parallel (fall 2005)
- Ensemble :  1 control, 8  SEF, 8 GEM              1 control, 8  SEF, 8 GEM
- GRID       :  1.2 x 1.2 (300 X 151 lat-lon)         1.2 x 1.2 (300 X 151 lat-lon)
- DOMAIN:  GLOBAL                                       Global
- FORMAT:  WMO Grib 1                                  WMO Grib 1
- Cycles      :  Presently 00Z cycle                        00Z, 12Z cycle by Jan 2006
- HOURS   : 000-240 hrs @ 12hr intevals           000-360 hrs @ 6hr intervals
- Files        :  187 (7 mbrs x 11 files                      1037 (17 mbrs x 61 files)
- 1 member    =  Approx. 70 Mb/mbr/run             205.4 Mb/mbr/run
- 17 members = Approx. 1.2 Gb/run/day            Approx. 3.41Gb/run=>6.82 Gb/day
- Location : _[ftp.cmc.ec.gc.ca/pub/cmc/ncep](ftp://ftp.cmc.ec.gc.ca/pub/cmc/ncep)_         Location: (<= see Ops)

- Content of  CMC grib-1 files
- all variables/2 (12hr) timesteps/1 mbr             all variables/1 (6hr) timestep/1 mbr
*(similar to NCEP’s “standard pressure format”)*
*	**	**offers efficient data packaging for post-processing...*

## Overview of NAEFS Telecom issues

-  NCEP pulls CMC ensemble data via internet from CMC’s FTP site:	very good access times for NCEP (order of 30 minutes for 1.2 Gb/run)
-  Before Oct 2005:
- CMC pulled NCEP ensemble data via internet via NWS’s FTP site:
- irregular and long access times: server load problems at NWS
- (of the order of 4 to 6+ hours for 1.8 Gb)
- Oct 2005
- NCEP pushes their grib data onto CMC server (1 hour transfer time)
- CMC has access to NCEP grib data in more timely fashion

**Longer term:**
-  Use of internet could be acceptable but .....		 reliability and timeliness will need to be high in full operational mode...
-  Increase in data volumes will require a more stable access to bandwidth
- Need to consider dedicated telecom link or upgrade to current GTS link (T1)

## Some lessons learned from NAEFS Telecom issues

- Data retrieval rates not consistent between centers
- Clearly identify data exchange timeliness delivery targets
- Plans to achieve targets take time to implement
- Some solutions are expensive (ex: dedicated lines)
- Temporary work-around solutions can help (ex: NCEP pushing their data onto CMC server)
- Telecom issues can take lots of planning and a long time to fully resolve

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSOperational considerations

- Implementing expanded EPS features in parallel while supporting a center’s daily operational run
- Coordination of future improvements with other participants; scientific and operational

## Some lessons learned from NAEFSOnline/Archival considerations

- How long should data be kept online?
- Do centers archive each other’s data?
- What retention time is expected in the archive? (5 years?)
- Do we archive only Appendix 5 variables?
- Do we archive raw model outputs (all eta level data?) so that post processed shared variables (CAPE) can be re-calculate in the future?

## Brief overview of future milestones for NAEFS

- Reasonable data transfer mechanisms and timeliness now in place
- Basic production mechanism in place
- CMC and NCEP can exchange ensemble grib data
- Create first generation of post-processed products
- Feb 2006 or sooner
- NCEP re-packaging it’s grib data sets to put all variables/1-6hr interval/1 member/ file
- Science and data content coordination
- CMC-NCEP converge on NAEFS science content issues to ensure consistency in grids, production of variables and post-processed products
- Telecom
- Ongoing evaluation of telecom issues to make data transfer faster and more operationally reliable (dedicated line?)
- Target for actual operational exchanges and production of products?

## More detailed outlook of NAEFS Telecom Issues

- (CMC-NCEP)

***CMC EPS data for NCEP (Short term issues)***
- CMC evaluates their ENS parallel run Sept-Dec 2005
- Testing of updated packaging of CMC data (all parms/6hour/1 mbr/file, 000-360hr)
- Testing of transmitting larger data sets ( from 1.2 Gb/run to 3.4 Gb/run)
- CMC implements ENS parallel run into operations (Jan 2006)
- (delivers 0-360hr forecasts, data @ 6hr intervals, 00Z and 12Z runs, more data)
***NCEP data for ******CMC (Short term issues)***
- CMC receives pushed NCEP enspost style data operationally (Sept 2005)
- NCEP working towards common file packaging format for optimum post-processing
- NCEP pushes their new common file packaging format to CMC (Fall 2005, Winter 2006)
- CMC works on post-processing of new NCEP data packaging (Fall 2005, Winter 2006)
***Longer term Telecom issues***
-           - Telecommunications solution to ensure high level timeliness and reliability
-           - Plan for transition to GRIB2 (2006 ?)
-           - Other participants added to project

## Following slides are for additional background information

## Update of the CMC Environmental Prediction System

##  16 members,  10 day forecasts done once a day  (00Z run)

-  perturbed analyses obtained from perturbed assimilation cycles           			(Kalman Filter Ensemble, EnKF)
-  multi-model approach: SEF T150 and GEM 1.2o (~130km)
-  different model options used for both models

- CMC EPS started with 8 members (SEF T95) in quasi-operational mode in March 1996.
- became operational in February 1998.
- 8 new models (GEM) were added in August 1999.
- products available on external Web page available in October 1999.
- increased horizontal resolution to T149 in June 2001.

- Current operational configuration

- Fall 2005 EPS Parallel run

-  Surface info (ISBA), member config, production to 360 hrs now in parallel
-  New system to become operational possible Jan 2006

## +

**T149 or ~150 km**

**10 days**
**16 members**

**observations**

**random numbers**

**perturbed observations**

**data assimilation**

**perturbed analyses *****a******i*****, *****i=1,8***

**6-h integration**
**with models *****i, i=1,8***

**perturbed **
**trial fields**

**medium-range integration**
**with models *****i (SEF), i=1,8***

**medium-range**
**forecast**

**surface fields:**
**(Z****0****, SST, AL)**

**random numbers**

**and**

**perturbed **
**surface fields:**
**(Z0, SST, AL)**

**medium-range integration**
**with models***** j (GEM), j=1,8***

**and**

**Canadian EPS set-up**

**doubling of analyses, *****i=1,8***

**each model *****i, i=1,8***** **
**and *****j*****, *****j=1,8*****  has its**
**own physics **
**parameterization**

**+**

***a******i ******, a******’******i***
***i=1,4***

***a******i ******, a******’******i***
***i=5,8***

_***data assimilation cycle***_

_***forecast cycle***_

## ENSEMBLE (PAR) SET-UP (including SFC info)

- observations

-     4D Var data
-     assimilation

- trials

- analysis

- 6 hour integration
-  GEM model (FC)

- Surface fields
-  ISBA scheme

- Pseudo analysis

- New surface
- fields

-  6 hour integration
-  GEM model (ISBA)

- dynamic fields

- trials (ISBA)

**Notes:**
Du cycle d`analyse du 4D-var, on ajoute un cycle partiel (dyn. de l`analyse+old sfc) pour cycler et corriger les champs de ISBA.

## Combination of model perturbations (OPS (sept 2005))

**SEF**
**(T149)        Add ops ****	**** Convection/Radiation****	**** GWD**	 **GWD**	            **Orography      Number    Time level**
**                    ****analysis****	****	****	****	**** version ****	****	****                 of levels ****	**
**1****	**yes	Kuo/ Garand	Strong	High altitude	0.3 	23	3
**2****	**no	Manabe/ Sasamori	Strong	Low altitude		0.3 	41	3
**3****	**no	Kuo/ Garand	Weak	Low altitude		Mean 	23	3
**4****	**yes	Manabe/ Sasamori	Weak	High altitude	Mean	41	3
**5****	**yes	Manabe/ Sasamori	Strong	Low altitude		Mean	23	2
**6****	**no	Kuo/ Garand	Strong	High altitude	Mean	41	2
**7****	**no	Manabe/ Sasamori	Weak	High altitude	0.3 	23	2
**8****	**yes	Kuo/ Garand	Weak	Low altitude		0.3 	41	2
**control****	**mean	Kuo/ Garand	Mean	Low altitude		0.15 	41	3
**GEM **
**(1.2****0****)         Add ops****	**** Deep****	**** ****	****Shallow****	**** Soil ****	****                 Sponge        Number     Coriolis**
**                  ****analysis****	**** convection ****	**** ****	****convection**	 **moisture** **	****	****                 of levels**	**	**
**9****	**no	Kuosym		new	Less 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**10****	**yes	RAS		old	Less 20%	                 equatorial	28              Implicit
**11****	**yes	RAS		old	Less 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**12****	**no	Kuosym		old	More 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**13****	**no	Kuosym		new	More 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**14****	**yes	Kuosym		new	Less 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**15****	**yes	Kuosym		old	Less 20%	                  global	28              Implicit
**16****	**no	OldKuo		new	More 20%	                  global	28              Implicit

- Combination of model perturbations **(OPS ****(sept 2005)****)**

## Combination of model purturbations (PAR (sept 2005))

** ****SEF          GWD          Convection   Schemes        Surface**      **Number      Time level    **
**(T149)       taufac              deep           shallow          scheme      of levels ****	**
**Control     **8.0e-6              Kuo            conres             Fcrest            27                  3
** ****1****	****          ** 1.2e-5	  Kuo	conres             ISBA	    27                  3
** ****2****	****           **1.2e-5	  Ras             turwet             Fcrest	    27                  3
-  **3               ** 4.0e-6              Kuo            conres             Fcrest            27                  3
** ****4                **4.0e-6 **             **Ras **            **turwet	   ISBA	    27                  3
** ****5****	**            1.2e-5             Ras             turwet	   Fcrest	    27            	     2
** ****6****	****          **  1.2e-5             Kuo            conres	   ISBA	    27	     2
** **7 **                **4.0e-6             Ras             turwet	   ISBA 	    27	     2
** ****8****	****          **  4.0e-6             Kuo            conres	   Fcrest 	    27	     2
**GEM        GWD         Convection   Schemes****	**** Surface        Number     Time level**
**(1.2)****            taufac           deep           shallow         ** ** scheme** **	**** of levels**
**	**
**9****	**           8.0e-6          Kuosym	ktrsnt             Fcrest       	   28                   2
**10****	**           8.0e-6          Ras	conres	  ISBA  	   28                   2
**11****	****          ** 8.0e-6          Ras	conres	  Fcrest 	   28                   2
**12****	****          ** 8.0e-6**          **Kuosym	ktrsnt	  ISBA 	   28                   2
**13****	**           8.0e-6          Kuostd	ktrsnt             Fcrest            28                   2
**14****	**           8.0e-6          Kuostd	ktrsnt	  ISBA        	   28                   2
**15****	**           8.0-e6          Kuosym	conres	  ISBA         	   28                   2
**16****	**           8.0e-6          Kuo	conres	  Fcrest	   28                   2

**Notes:**
La version la plus récente des modèles proposés pour CPOP. Les modèles sont plus près entre eux.

## Summary of EPS developments at CMC

- Fall 2005 parallel run
- forecasts extending to 15 days,
- increase robustness of schemes,
- reconfigure certain members
- validate post processing routines
- January 2006 (or sooner)
- Parallel run becomes operational
- Daily 00Z & 12Z forecast runs out to 360 hrs
- Ongoing
- strive to use state of the art parameterizations,
- eventually add stochastic physics,
- develop week two weather products
- replace SEF members by GEM
- increase the number of members to 20
- unification of EPS members

## NAEFSDetails of data exchange betweenCMC-NCEP

## Past NAEFS milestones

- (CMC perspective)

- Winter 2004: confirmed common set of variables-levels (See “Appendix 5”)
- April 2004: addition of 3D humidity variable to the “Appendix 5” list
- August 2004: addition of new variables to the CMC dataset:
- CAPE,  Tmin, Tmax
- _quantitative_ precipitation types (rain, snow, freezing rain and ice pellets)
- September 2004:
- CMC GRIB dataset is complete as per Appendix 5 variables (except wave model)
- final testing and validation of CMC grib encoding with NCEP (before their “freeze”)
- October 2004
- Start of full Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) parallel run
- Improvements to ensemble production runs: products available more than one hour earlier:
- Before: around 07Z ......  Now: around 5:45Z
- Sept 2005: NCEP pushes their dataset to CMC server to accelerate CMC retrieval of NCEP data
- Fall 2005: Start of CMC EPS parallel run
- Improved SEF member configuration
- Addition of high quality surface information in the assimilation cycle
- All Appendix 5 variables (except WAM data) included
- Forecast data available at 6hr intervals from 0-360 hrs
- Introduction of a 12Z run YYYYMMDD

## Some lessons learned to date from NAEFS experience

- Any changes to system require extensive planning and coordination
- Try and get the  list of shared variables correct as early as possible
- Making changes to the content of operational files requires parallel runs often followed by coordination between centers
- Strive to ensure post-processing data needs will be met by the variables list
- Effort required between centers to encode parms when standard grib-1 tables are not designed for those variables. Ex: handling precipitation type accumulation with grib 1 (Grib-2 may help this)
- Transferring from grib-1 to grib-2 will require development and coordination
- Post-processing of variables requires extensive coordination
- Will there be uniformity of post processed products?
- Will post processed products use same “code” for inter center consistency?
- Can/Should centers easily share post-processing code?
- Will post-processing tasks be done by a code that is shared by all participants or by having each center use their own “proprietary” tools and code
- Telecom issues take a long time to resolve
- Datasets very large and getting larger (CMC now at 3.4 Gb/run x 2 runs/day)
- Data retrieval times not consistent between centers
- Dedicated lines could help but very costly
- Very clear mid and long term plans are important to help plan activities

## CMC Cape calculation

- Cape is calculated in post-production mode
- Cape is calculated only for gridpoints which have lifted index < +3
- Gridpoints with values of -1 indicated no CAPE value has been calculated for that gridpoint
- Some 0h members (001,004, 005, 008, 010, 011, 014 et 015) may not be at equilibrium at initialization and as so their CAPE values may be unrealiable
- A new approach in intialization will correct this shortly

## CMC Tmin/Tmax calculation

- Tmin & Tmax calculated in post-processing mode
- Max/Min surface temperatures are presently calculated over a 12 hour period

## CMC Precipitation Type Information

- CMC dataset offers quantitative precipitation amounts for 4 types of precipitation: rain, snow, freezing rain and ice pellets
- Our algorithm used is the Bourgouin method:
- Weather and Forecasting (Bourgouin, Pierre. 2000: A Method to Determine Precipitation Types. Weather and Forecasting: Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 583-592. or _[http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0434&volume=015&issue=05&page=0583](http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0434&volume=015&issue=05&page=0583)_)
- For each 12-hour period, each member of the Canadian EPS forecasts precipitation amounts expected to fall as rain, snow, freezing rain and ice pellets separately (i.e. four fields).
- We could also further include dominant type of precipitation per time interval but this would have to be further discussed and agreed upon
- NCEP only provides categorical occurrence (0-1) of each precip type.