ord version of this Memo Memo To Users of NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC Eta forecast model From NOAA/NESDIS/ORA/ORAD and NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC Subject Use of NESDIS 50-km SST analysis in EMC's Meso Eta model Date 21st December 2000 This memo addresses some of the concerns raised by Geoff DiMego's message dated 19th December 2000 concerning "Meso Eta change to SST". As indicated by Geoff in the first paragraph of his message, the Meso Eta model has been overly active along the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes region this season. Since high SSTs assist in cyclogenesis, NCEP/EMC decided to investigate the validity of the SST analysis that was being used in the Eta modeling system. It was noted that the ETA analyzed SST field using the NESDIS 50-km product was up to 8 °C warmer (e.g. 12Z model run, 19th Dec 2000) than when using the NCEP 1°×1° analysis, with the difference being greatest in the Gulf Stream region northeast of Cape Hatteras. Preliminary investigations by EMC's Ocean Modeling Branch comparing buoy temperatures with Reynolds' and NESDIS SST analyses indicated that the latter could be warmer by up to 5 °C in some regions. There were also indications that the Eta modeling system produced too much precipitation in response to the warmer and moister boundary layer over the Gulf Stream Region. Late in November EMC noticed that the Great Lake satellite water temperatures provided by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) weren't changing. GLERL verified that it had been 27 days since they had been able to update their temperatures due to persistent cloud cover. By December 3rd they corrected their sea surface temperature product resulting in cooler temperatures of 3 to 6 degrees more appropriate for this time of year. Since the 8th of December GLERL has again had difficulty updating their product over the Great Lakes due to persistent cloud cover. Based on the analysis of these two satellite products by EMC, a decision was made to replace the source of the sea surface temperature fields used in the meso Eta. Starting at 18Z on the 20th of December, the NESDIS 50-km SST analysis and GLERL Great Lakes SSTs were replaced by the Reynolds' SST analysis until the issues can be understood and resolved. NESDIS became aware of the change on the 20th of December and investigated the problem with the following results. 1) The NESDIS 50-km analysis is a satellite-only product, whereas the Reynolds analysis makes use of in situ SSTs from buoys and ships, using satellite data to fill the gaps by optimal interpolation. 2) Both the Atlantic and Great Lakes regions are heavily cloud-covered at this time of year, leading to relatively few satellite retrievals on a daily basis. The Great Lakes temperatures reported by GLERL have, in some cases, not been updated for nearly a month due to cloud cover. 3) In the case of the Eta 12Z model run on 19th December, much of the Atlantic region had been heavily cloud covered for a number of days beforehand, although some SST retrievals over the Gulf Stream from AVHRR passes the day before were possible. However, these data were too late to be included in the 10 - 16 December Reynolds SST analysis, which was therefore relying heavily on in situ measurements. In this regard, moored buoys were only obtainable close to the coast and in the open ocean, too far East and South of the area of interest, while no drifting buoys were present in the area. 4) Thus, two things need to be considered when drawing conclusions from the comparisons made by EMC Ocean Modeling Branch. First, the coastal nature of the buoys showing the greatest discrepancy with the NESDIS 50-km analysis can be explained by the high gradients in the local region (cool shelf vs. warm Gulf Stream waters off the coast). These comparisons should be done using 1-km (or at worst 4-km) resolution satellite data. Note also that there are no comparison points in the critical area of interest. Second, in the heavily cloud-contaminated period during which the most recent Reynolds analysis was generated, the absence of satellite data will have caused the scheme to revert to straightforward interpolation between the relatively widely-spaced in situ data. The EMC/OMB comparison between buoy temperatures and Reynolds is therefore pitting in situ vs. in situ, and will inevitably result in good bias figures. 5) Finally, the question remains as to whether the warmer SSTs in the NESDIS 50-km analysis for 19th December are real. 1-km AVHRR SST imagery over the Northeast Atlantic coastal region for 18th December (Figure 1) clearly shows a Northward-protruding meander with water temperatures of about 23-24°C, whereas the surrounding shelf water is 10-15°C. In support of this observation, SST retrievals (see Figure 2) from the TRMM Microwave Imager (courtesy of Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA) show the same feature with similar temperatures. The linkage between the SST field and the modeling system require a better understand and that operational decisions require better coordination among the partners (NWS/NCEP/EMC and NESDIS/ORA/ORAD) responsible for production and use of the SST products. The characteristics and limitations of the various products will be better understood. This is particularly important when intercomparing products and validating against in situ. Our recommendations are as follows: i) Improve the working relationship between NWS/NCEP/EMC and NESDIS/ORA/ORAD to enable both an immediate resolution of problems and development of high-resolution satellite-only and combined products that are more specifically tailored to modeling requirements. ii) We will work jointly towards an optimum methodology for product quality assurance. Comparison of satellite SST retrievals and in situ data should be done at the highest possible resolution in space and time in order to minimize errors not directly related to the retrieval process. iii) Cloud cover is the implacable enemy of SST retrieval from infrared satellite sensors, and methods must be developed to minimize its impact on the operational SST analyses. Suggestions include: a) Use of high temporal resolution data (e.g. from GOES-Imager) to 'dodge' the clouds, where possible, b) Use of passive microwave data, where available, to obtain low-resolution (50-km) retrievals in cloudy conditions c) Correct propagation of old SST observations by variational assimilation into a dynamical ocean model. This will require adequate characterization of the observation error covariances in the various regions. These efforts will benefit from collaborations that are being developed with NAVOCEANO under the GODAE initiative, d) Use of climatological and other information in the production of surface temperature analyses will be necessary in order to avoid the problem of fields remaining static in the case of persistent cloud cover. iv) EMC will continue to investigate the reasons for increased cyclogenetic activity this winter compared to last. In addition, as SST field improvements and enhancements are developed, it will apply parallel testing of them. In this way, the impact of the changes on the Eta modeling system can be assessed and measured. The following is the original e-mail sent 19 December 2000. NCEP's Central Operations has just informed me that the change (discussed below) will be made with the 18z run of the Meso Eta today (12/20/00). Folks: This season, we have seen a fairly active character to the Meso Eta along the Great Lakes and Atlantic Coast. It has been more active than either the NGM or the AVN. We have looked into the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) fields used in the models. Both the NGM and the AVN use a 1 degree by 1 degree product (the so- called Reynolds analysis), whereas the Meso Eta uses a different analysis on a 50 km grid (MCSST - multi-channel NESDIS product). The latter product has high resolution Great Lake temperatures added that are provided by GLERL (Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory). To make a long story short, we have had (are having) problems with both of the sources of SST information for the Meso Eta runs. First, late in November Eric Rogers noticed that the GLERL temperatures weren't changing. GLERL verified that it had been 27 days since they had been able to update their temperatures due to lack of satellite SST's (too much cloud) leaving them 3-6 degrees too warm. By December 3rd this problem had been corrected (for the time being - we've seen little change since the 8th). This was occurring during same period that various data sources (e.g. Canadian RAOB's) were missing due to comm's problems. Second, with help from EMC's Ocean Modeling Branch, we have verified that the MCSST analysis of the Gulf Stream was warmer than either the 1 degree Reynolds analysis or buoy data. Several spots were 5 degrees or more too warm. Problems with NESDIS' NOAA-14 SST's have been implicated by NESDIS. We have just filed a request for an emergency change to turn off the use of the MCSST and GLERL temperatures (not easily separated) and replace them with the 1 degree analysis until the problems can be resolved. The use of the Reynolds analysis produces 1-2 degree colder lake temperatures than GLERL's current values (again - not changed since the 8th). Now all three models will be using the same daily SST analysis. ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: Re: Meso Eta change to SST
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:13:04 -0500
see also attached figures and MS Word version of this Memo Memo To Users of NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC Eta forecast model From NOAA/NESDIS/ORA/ORAD and NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC Subject Use of NESDIS 50-km SST analysis in EMC's Meso Eta model Date 21st December 2000 This memo addresses some of the concerns raised by Geoff DiMego's message dated 19th December 2000 concerning "Meso Eta change to SST". As indicated by Geoff in the first paragraph of his message, the Meso Eta model has been overly active along the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes region this season. Since high SSTs assist in cyclogenesis, NCEP/EMC decided to investigate the validity of the SST analysis that was being used in the Eta modeling system. It was noted that the ETA analyzed SST field using the NESDIS 50-km product was up to 8 °C warmer (e.g. 12Z model run, 19th Dec 2000) than when using the NCEP 1°×1° analysis, with the difference being greatest in the Gulf Stream region northeast of Cape Hatteras. Preliminary investigations by EMC's Ocean Modeling Branch comparing buoy temperatures with Reynolds' and NESDIS SST analyses indicated that the latter could be warmer by up to 5 °C in some regions. There were also indications that the Eta modeling system produced too much precipitation in response to the warmer and moister boundary layer over the Gulf Stream Region. Late in November EMC noticed that the Great Lake satellite water temperatures provided by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) weren't changing. GLERL verified that it had been 27 days since they had been able to update their temperatures due to persistent cloud cover. By December 3rd they corrected their sea surface temperature product resulting in cooler temperatures of 3 to 6 degrees more appropriate for this time of year. Since the 8th of December GLERL has again had difficulty updating their product over the Great Lakes due to persistent cloud cover. Based on the analysis of these two satellite products by EMC, a decision was made to replace the source of the sea surface temperature fields used in the meso Eta. Starting at 18Z on the 20th of December, the NESDIS 50-km SST analysis and GLERL Great Lakes SSTs were replaced by the Reynolds' SST analysis until the issues can be understood and resolved. NESDIS became aware of the change on the 20th of December and investigated the problem with the following results. 1) The NESDIS 50-km analysis is a satellite-only product, whereas the Reynolds analysis makes use of in situ SSTs from buoys and ships, using satellite data to fill the gaps by optimal interpolation. 2) Both the Atlantic and Great Lakes regions are heavily cloud-covered at this time of year, leading to relatively few satellite retrievals on a daily basis. The Great Lakes temperatures reported by GLERL have, in some cases, not been updated for nearly a month due to cloud cover. 3) In the case of the Eta 12Z model run on 19th December, much of the Atlantic region had been heavily cloud covered for a number of days beforehand, although some SST retrievals over the Gulf Stream from AVHRR passes the day before were possible. However, these data were too late to be included in the 10 - 16 December Reynolds SST analysis, which was therefore relying heavily on in situ measurements. In this regard, moored buoys were only obtainable close to the coast and in the open ocean, too far East and South of the area of interest, while no drifting buoys were present in the area. 4) Thus, two things need to be considered when drawing conclusions from the comparisons made by EMC Ocean Modeling Branch. First, the coastal nature of the buoys showing the greatest discrepancy with the NESDIS 50-km analysis can be explained by the high gradients in the local region (cool shelf vs. warm Gulf Stream waters off the coast). These comparisons should be done using 1-km (or at worst 4-km) resolution satellite data. Note also that there are no comparison points in the critical area of interest. Second, in the heavily cloud-contaminated period during which the most recent Reynolds analysis was generated, the absence of satellite data will have caused the scheme to revert to straightforward interpolation between the relatively widely-spaced in situ data. The EMC/OMB comparison between buoy temperatures and Reynolds is therefore pitting in situ vs. in situ, and will inevitably result in good bias figures. 5) Finally, the question remains as to whether the warmer SSTs in the NESDIS 50-km analysis for 19th December are real. 1-km AVHRR SST imagery over the Northeast Atlantic coastal region for 18th December (Figure 1) clearly shows a Northward-protruding meander with water temperatures of about 23-24°C, whereas the surrounding shelf water is 10-15°C. In support of this observation, SST retrievals (see Figure 2) from the TRMM Microwave Imager (courtesy of Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA) show the same feature with similar temperatures. The linkage between the SST field and the modeling system require a better understand and that operational decisions require better coordination among the partners (NWS/NCEP/EMC and NESDIS/ORA/ORAD) responsible for production and use of the SST products. The characteristics and limitations of the various products will be better understood. This is particularly important when intercomparing products and validating against in situ. Our recommendations are as follows: i) Improve the working relationship between NWS/NCEP/EMC and NESDIS/ORA/ORAD to enable both an immediate resolution of problems and development of high-resolution satellite-only and combined products that are more specifically tailored to modeling requirements. ii) We will work jointly towards an optimum methodology for product quality assurance. Comparison of satellite SST retrievals and in situ data should be done at the highest possible resolution in space and time in order to minimize errors not directly related to the retrieval process. iii) Cloud cover is the implacable enemy of SST retrieval from infrared satellite sensors, and methods must be developed to minimize its impact on the operational SST analyses. Suggestions include: a) Use of high temporal resolution data (e.g. from GOES-Imager) to 'dodge' the clouds, where possible, b) Use of passive microwave data, where available, to obtain low-resolution (50-km) retrievals in cloudy conditions c) Correct propagation of old SST observations by variational assimilation into a dynamical ocean model. This will require adequate characterization of the observation error covariances in the various regions. These efforts will benefit from collaborations that are being developed with NAVOCEANO under the GODAE initiative, d) Use of climatological and other information in the production of surface temperature analyses will be necessary in order to avoid the problem of fields remaining static in the case of persistent cloud cover. iv) EMC will continue to investigate the reasons for increased cyclogenetic activity this winter compared to last. In addition, as SST field improvements and enhancements are developed, it will apply parallel testing of them. In this way, the impact of the changes on the Eta modeling system can be assessed and measured. The following is the original e-mail sent 19 December 2000. NCEP's Central Operations has just informed me that the change (discussed below) will be made with the 18z run of the Meso Eta today (12/20/00). Folks: This season, we have seen a fairly active character to the Meso Eta along the Great Lakes and Atlantic Coast. It has been more active than either the NGM or the AVN. We have looked into the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) fields used in the models. Both the NGM and the AVN use a 1 degree by 1 degree product (the so- called Reynolds analysis), whereas the Meso Eta uses a different analysis on a 50 km grid (MCSST - multi-channel NESDIS product). The latter product has high resolution Great Lake temperatures added that are provided by GLERL (Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory). To make a long story short, we have had (are having) problems with both of the sources of SST information for the Meso Eta runs. First, late in November Eric Rogers noticed that the GLERL temperatures weren't changing. GLERL verified that it had been 27 days since they had been able to update their temperatures due to lack of satellite SST's (too much cloud) leaving them 3-6 degrees too warm. By December 3rd this problem had been corrected (for the time being - we've seen little change since the 8th). This was occurring during same period that various data sources (e.g. Canadian RAOB's) were missing due to comm's problems. Second, with help from EMC's Ocean Modeling Branch, we have verified that the MCSST analysis of the Gulf Stream was warmer than either the 1 degree Reynolds analysis or buoy data. Several spots were 5 degrees or more too warm. Problems with NESDIS' NOAA-14 SST's have been implicated by NESDIS. We have just filed a request for an emergency change to turn off the use of the MCSST and GLERL temperatures (not easily separated) and replace them with the 1 degree analysis until the problems can be resolved. The use of the Reynolds analysis produces 1-2 degree colder lake temperatures than GLERL's current values (again - not changed since the 8th). Now all three models will be using the same daily SST analysis.Attachment: Memo_Eta_SSTs.doc
Description: MS-Word document
--- End Message ---