# Presentation: 034878

## NAME Climate Process and Modeling Team/Issues for Warm Season Prediction

- J. Schemm and D. Gutzler
- CPC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA
- University of New Mexico
- The 30th Climate Diagnostics and Prediction workshop
- The Pennsylvania State University
- October 24-28, 2005
- Acknowledgements: Myong-In Lee, Soo-Hyun Yoo and Lindsey Williams

## NAME Climate Process and Modeling Team- supported by NOAA/OGP CPPA program

- Team members:
- David Gutzler, University of New Mexico
- Wayne Higgins, CPC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA
- Brian Mapes, University of Miami
- Kingtse Mo, CPC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA
- Shrinivas Moorthi, EMC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA
- Jae-Kyung Schemm, CPC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA
- Siegfried Schubert, GMAO/GSFC/NASA
- Glenn White, EMC/NCEP/NWS/NOAA

## Project Objectives:

- Implementation of the second phase of NAME Model
-  	Assessment Project (NAMAP2) focused on the 2004 season.
- Coordinated efforts with the current  NAME Diurnal Cycle
-  	Experiment Project in GCM diagnostics.
- Implementation of their findings to the NCEP GFS/CFS
- 	operational forecast system - NOAA Climate Test Bed.
- Serve as a primary mechanism for collaboration and
- 	technology transfer between research communities and
- 	operational centers.

## NAMAP Analysis:  Metrics for model development

- Improved simulation of monsoon onset, especially in global models
- Goals for improvement of precipitation (total amount and diurnal variability) and surface flux simulations, tied to improvements in ground truth to be achieved from NAME 2004 field observations
- Questions regarding the structure of low-level jet circulations and their importance for proper precipitation simulation

**Notes:**
NAMAP yielded metrics for model improvement. NAMAP2 and the NAME CPT seek to achieve these improvement goals.

## NAMAP2 

- A coordinated exercise in global and regional atmospheric modeling of NAMS.
- Summer 2004 is the simulation target.
- Simulation protocols have been developed and announced among potential participants.
- Focus on uncertainties identified in NAMAP, with additional emphasis on verification using enhanced observations from the NAME 2004 field campaign.
- Results based on the first NAMAP published in BAMS, Oct. 2005.

## NAMAP2

- Will re-examine the metrics proposed by the first NAMAP.
- -	For proper specification of SSTs in the Gulf of California, a new SST analysis has been developed by W. Wang and P. Xie of CPC.

## NAMAP2  Protocols

**NAMAP2  Protocols**

## Output Archiving Protocols 

_**a) For spatial analysis:**_
**Archive lat-lon fields covering the NAMAP2**
**domain every 3 hours (8/day) during simulation period. Fields to archive:**

**Output Archiving Protocols **

## Output Archiving Protocols

_**b) For high-resolution temporal analysis:**_
**Archive "MOLTS"-style time series (at least hourly in time and full vertical resolution). We will consider surface fluxes and profiles of humidity, T, u, v, w, p, resolved and convective precipitation, cloud fraction, radiation, and turbulence at model grid points corresponding to the following NAME sounding sites:**** **

**Output Archiving Protocols**

## A Multi-Platform-Merged (MPM) SST Analysis over the NAME DomainWanqiu Wang and Pingping XieClimate Prediction CenterNCEP/NWS/NOAA

- To create a fine-resolution SST analysis with desirable resolutions and accuracy for NAME Projects
- Resolution: 	0.25o in space, 3-hour in time
- Domain:	180o – 30oW, 30oS – 60oN
- Target Period:	2001 – present

- Input data:		All available in-situ and advanced satellite 					observations
- Quality control: 	Cross verification to ensure data quality
- OI analysis:		Combining SST data from all observations 					through the Optimal Interpolation (OI)

## Input Data

-   In-situ observations
- Buoys and ships
-   Satellite Observations
- GOES:		3-hourly / clear sky
- TMI:     		twice daily / all sky
**AMSR**:		twice daily / all sky
- NOAA16:	twice daily / clear sky
- NOAA17:	twice daily / clear sky
- MODIS:		Not included yet.

## Input SST for AMJ 2004

- Similar Spatial distribution Pattern;
- Differences in small-scale features and in magnitude

## Current Status

- Developed prototype algorithm to define the analysis
- Produced analysis for 2004
- Conducted preliminary comparison with existing analyses (OI and RTG)

## Some quick analysis statistics

| OI | RTG | MPM |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0.70 K | 0.60 K | 0.48 K |

**OI:**		Weekly Optimum Interpolation
**RTG:**	Real-Time Global analysis (2DVAR)
**MPM:**	Multi-Platform-Merged Analysis

**Magnitude of accuracy****:   **RMS difference in daily  mean between analyses and moored buoy (May 15 to Sep 30, 2004)

- Magnitude of mean bias:   RMS difference in seasonal mean between analyses and all in situ (Jun 1 to Aug 31, 2004)

| OI | RTG | MPM |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0.44 K | 0.32 K | 0.19 K |

## Mean difference (K) between analyses

**Mean difference (K) between analyses**
** ****and in situ observations**
- (Jun 1 to Aug 31, 2004)

- MPM shows smaller bias

**Note:**** **In situ observations were used in all analyses.  However, MPM is probably less dependent on the in situ because the use of much larger amount of satellite observations.

## Issues involved in warm season predictability over NAME area

- Model sensitivity on
- 	1. Horizontal resolution
- 	2. Continental boundary conditions
- 	3. Oceanic boundary condition
- Physical processes
- 	1. Vertical sounding analysis
- 	    - test for model convection schemes.
- 	2. Surface flux and PBL formulations

## Coordinated activities with the NAME Diurnal Cycle Experiment Project (S. Schubert, PI)

**Collaborative effort among NASA, GFDL and NCEP.**
**GCM diagnostics focused on diurnal cycle over NAME domain.**
**Findings of this project to be tested on NCEP GFS**
**	****and CFS GCMs.**

## Slide 20

## Figure 1

- Obs
- GFDL
- NCEP
- NASA
- NARR

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## GFS Resolution and Precipitation in the Core Monsoon Region

**Precipitation (mm day****-1****) Seasonal Cycle (1981-2000)**

- T62

- obs

- T126

- month

- P (JAS)  & T2m from observations, AMIP126 and SIMU126

- In comparison with observations:
- The AMIP is too hot (2 C higher) and too dry (2 mm/day less ) over the Great Plains ;
- The SIMU ensemble means are closer to the observations

## Area Mean of Climatological Precipitation

## Anomaly Correlation Scores of 2m Temperatureover US Region; RNL2

## Summary

- NAMAP2 protocols have been developed and posted at UCAR/JOSS website. A special SST analysis provided by Wang and Xie of CPC
- Coordinated with the NAME Diurnal Cycle Project, impact of GCM horizontal resolution on warm season precipitation over NA has been examined.
- Initial soil moisture is important in reducing systematic error and seasonal progression of precipitation and surface temperature.
- Role of ocean boundary condition will be examined with the new improved SST analysis.