4.4 Article

Direct 4D-Var Assimilation of NCEP Stage IV Radar and Gauge Precipitation Data at ECMWF

期刊

MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
卷 139, 期 7, 页码 2098-2116

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2010MWR3565.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct four-dimensional variational data assimilation (4D-Var) of NCEP stage IV radar and gauge precipitation observations over the eastern United States has been developed and tested in ECMWE's global Integrated Forecasting System. This is the natural extension of earlier work using a two-step 1D+4D-Var approach. Major aspects of the implementation are described and discussed in this paper. In particular, it is found that assimilating 6-h precipitation accumulations instead of the original hourly data substantially improves the behavior of 4D-Var, especially as regards the validity of the tangent-linear assumption. The comparison of background and analysis precipitation departures demonstrates that most of the information contained in the new precipitation observations is properly assimilated. Experiments run over the periods April May and September October 2009 also show that local precipitation forecasts become significantly better for ranges up to 12 h, which indicates that a genuine precipitation analysis can now be obtained over the eastern United States. Geopotential, temperature, moisture, and wind forecast scores are generally neutral or slightly positive for all regions of the globe and at all ranges, which is consistent with previous 1D+4D-Var results. The most crucial issue that remains unsolved is the treatment of nonprecipitating model background occurrences because of the corresponding absence of sensitivity in the linearized moist physics. For the moment, only points where both model background and observations are rainy are assimilated. Operational implementation using U.S. data is planned in 2011 and one can hope that new networks of radars (and maybe rain gauges) can be added in the 4D-Var assimilation process in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据