Abstract
Use of data assimilation to initialize hydrometeors plays a vital role in numerical weather prediction (NWP). To directly analyze hydrometeors in data assimilation systems from cloud-sensitive observations, hydrometeor control variables are necessary. Common data assimilation systems theoretically require that the probability density functions (PDFs) of analysis, background, and observation errors should satisfy the Gaussian unbiased assumptions. In this study, a Gaussian transform method is proposed to transform hydrometeors to more Gaussian variables, which is modified from the Softmax function and renamed as Quasi-Softmax transform. The Quasi-Softmax transform method then is compared to the original hydrometeor mixing ratios and their logarithmic transform and Softmax transform. The spatial distribution, the non-Gaussian nature of the background errors, and the characteristics of the background errors of hydrometeors in each method are studied. Compared to the logarithmic and Softmax transform, the Quasi-Softmax method keeps the vertical distribution of the original hydrometeor mixing ratios to the greatest extent. The results of the D’Agostino test show that the hydrometeors transformed by the Quasi-Softmax method are more Gaussian when compared to the other methods. The Gaussian transform has been added to the control variable transform to estimate the background error covariances. Results show that the characteristics of the hydrometeor background errors are reasonable for the Quasi-Softmax method. The transformed hydrometeors using the Quasi-Softmax transform meet the Gaussian unbiased assumptions of the data assimilation system, and are promising control variables for data assimilation systems.
摘 要
水凝物变量的初始化在数值模式预报中起到了非常重要的作用. 资料同化理论上要求分析场、背景场以及观测误差概率密度函数满足高斯无偏分布的假定. 针对水凝物变量的非高斯问题, 本研究提出了一个适用于水凝物变量的高斯转换方法, 并分别对不同转换方法获得的水凝物变量的空间分布特征、 误差的高斯性以及背景误差协方差的特征进行了分析. 高斯诊断分析表明, 与其它转换方法相比, 本方法转换后的水凝物变量比其它方法转换的变量更接近高斯分布, 同时该方法保持了水凝物变量本身的空间分布特征. 进一步地, 作者将该方法引入到控制变量转换中, 并统计分析了控制变量转换后的水凝物变量的背景误差协方差, 结果表明, 转换后的水凝物变量背景误差协方差的结构特征是合理的. 本研究表明, 经过本文方法高斯转换后的水凝物变量可以满足资料同化系统中背景误差高斯无偏分布的假定, 可以作为资料同化系统的控制变量.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auligné, T., 2014: Multivariate minimum residual method for cloud retrieval. Part I: Theoretical aspects and simulated observation experiments. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 4383–4398, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00172.1.
Auligné, T., A. Lorenc, Y. Michel, T. Montmerle, A. Jones, M. Hu, and J. Dudhia, 2011: Toward a new cloud analysis and prediction system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 207–210, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2978.1.
Barker, D. M., W. Huang, Y. R. Guo, A. J. Bourgeois, and Q. N. Xiao, 2004: A three-dimensional variational data assimilation system for MM5: Implementation and initial results. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 897–914, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<0897:ATVDAS>2.0.CO;2.
Bauer, P., and Coauthors, 2011: Satellite cloud and precipitation assimilation at operational NWP centres. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 117, 1934–1951, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.905.
Bishop, C., 1995: Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford University Press, 482 pp.
Bocquet, M., C. A. Pires, and L. Wu, 2010: Beyond Gaussian statistical modeling in geophysical data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 2997–3023, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3164.1.
Boukabara, S. A., and Coauthors, 2011: MiRS: An all-weather 1DVAR satellite data assimilation and retrieval system. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 49(9), 3249–3272, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2011.2158438.
Bridle, J. S., 1990: Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. Neurocomputing: Algorithms, Architectures and Applications, F. F. Soulie and J. Hérault, Eds., Springer, 227–236, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76153-9_28.
Buehner, M., and D. Jacques, 2020: Non-Gaussian deterministic assimilation of radar-derived precipitation accumulations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 783–808, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0199.1.
Chen, H. Q., Y. D. Chen, J. D. Gao, T. Sun, and J. T. Carlin, 2020: A radar reflectivity data assimilation method based on background-dependent hydrometeor retrieval: An observing system simulation experiment. Atmospheric Research, 243, 105022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105022.
Chen, Y. D., H. L. Wang, J. Z. Min, X. Y. Huang, P. Minnis, R. Z. Zhang, J. Haggerty, and R. Palikonda, 2015: Variational assimilation of cloud liquid/ice water path and its impact on NWP. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 14, 1809–1825, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0243.1.
Chen, Y. D., R. Z. Zhang, D. M. Meng, J. Z. Min, and L. N. Zhang, 2016: Variational assimilation of satellite cloud water/ice path and microphysics scheme sensitivity to the assimilation of a rainfall case. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 33(10), 1158–1170, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-016-6004-3.
D’Agostino, R. B., 1970: Transformation to normality of the null distribution of g1. Biometrika, 57, 679–681, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.679.
Dowell, D. C., L. J. Wicker, and C. Snyder, 2011: Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of radar observations of the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma City Supercell: Influences of reflectivity observations on storm-scale analyses. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 272–294, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3438.1.
Errico, R. M., L. Fillion, D. Nychka, and Z. Q. Lu, 2000: Some statistical considerations associated with the data assimilation of precipitation observations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 339–359, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656217.
Errico, R. M., P. Bauer, and J. Mahfouf, 2007: Issues regarding the assimilation of cloud and precipitation data. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 3785–3798, https://doi.org/10.1175/2006JAS2044.1.
Fabry, F., 2010: For how long should what data be assimilated for the mesoscale forecasting of convection and why? Part II: On the observation signal from different sensors Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 256–264, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2884.1.
Fabry, F. and J. Z. Sun, 2010: For how long should what data be assimilated for the mesoscale forecasting of convection and why? Part I: On the propagation of initial condition errors and their implications for data assimilation Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 242–255, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2883.1.
Fletcher, S. J., and M. Zupanski, 2007: Implications and impacts of transforming lognormal variables into normal variables in VAR. Meteorol. Z., 16, 755–765, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2007/0243.
Gao, J. D., and D. J. Stensrud, 2012: Assimilation of reflectivity data in a convective-scale, cycled 3DVAR Framework with hydrometeor classification. J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1054–1065, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0162.1.
Gao, J. D., and D. J. Stensrud, 2014: Some observing system simulation experiments with a hybrid 3DEnVAR system for storm-scale radar data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 3326–3346, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00025.1.
Hólm, E., and J. D. Gong, 2010: Use of cloud condensate in the background error formulation. ECMWF-JCSDA Workshop, June 2010, 111–119.
Hólm, E. V., E. Andersson, A. Beljaars, P. Lopez, J. F. Mahfouf, A. Simmons, and J. N. Thépaut, 2002: Assimilation and modelling of the hydrological cycle: ECMWF’s status and plans. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Technical Memorandum, https://doi.org/10.21957/kry8prwuq.
Hu, M., M. Xue, and K. Brewster, 2006: 3DVAR and cloud analysis with WSR-88D level-II data for the prediction of the fort worth, Texas, Tornadic thunderstorms. Part I: Cloud analysis and its impact. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 675–698, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3092.1.
Huang, Y. J., and Coauthors, 2018: Forecasting severe convective storms with WRF-based RTFDDA radar data assimilation in Guangdong, China. Atmospheric Research, 209, 131–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.03.010.
Jones, T. A., D. J. Stensrud, P. Minnis, and R. Palikonda, 2013: Evaluation of a forward operator to assimilate cloud water path into WRF-DART. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 2272–2289, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00238.1.
Kawabata, T., and G. Ueno, 2020: Non-Gaussian probability densities of convection initiation and development investigated using a particle filter with a storm-scale numerical weather prediction model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 3–20, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0367.1.
Kerr, C. A., D. J. Stensrud, and X. G. Wang, 2015: Assimilation of cloud-top temperature and radar observations of an idealized splitting supercell using an Observing System Simulation Experiment. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 1018–1034, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00146.1.
Kotsuki, S., T. Miyoshi, K. Terasaki, G. Y. Lien, and E. Kalnay, 2017: Assimilating the global satellite mapping of precipitation data with the Nonhydrostatic Icosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM). J. Geophys. Res., 122, 631–650, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025355.
Lawson, W. G. and J. A. Hansen, 2005: Alignment error models and ensemble-based data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 1687–1709, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2945.1.
Legrand, R., Y. Michel, and T. Montmerle, 2016: Diagnosing non-Gaussianity of forecast and analysis errors in a convective-scale model. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 23, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-23-1-2016.
Li, X. L., J. R. Mecikalski, and D. Posselt, 2017: An ice-phase microphysics forward model and preliminary results of polarimetric radar data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 683–708, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0035.1.
Lien, G. Y., E. Kalnay, and T. Miyoshi, 2013: Effective assimilation of global precipitation: Simulation experiments. Tellus A, 65, 19915, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v65i0.19915.
Liu, C. S., M. Xue, and R. Kong, 2020: Direct variational assimilation of radar reflectivity and radial velocity data: Issues with nonlinear reflectivity operator and solutions. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 1483–1502, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0149.1.
Liu, Z. Q., X. Y. Zhang, T. Auligné, and H. C. Lin, 2009. Variational analysis of hydrometeors with satellite radiance observations: A simulated study. Proc. 10th WRF Users’ Workshop, 23–26 June 2009, Boulder, CO.
Meng, D. M., Y. D. Chen, H. L. Wang, Y. F. Gao, R. Potthast, and Y. B. Wang, 2019: The evaluation of EnVar method including hydrometeors analysis variables for assimilating cloud liquid/ice water path on prediction of rainfall events. Atmospheric Research, 219, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.12.017.
Michel, Y., T. Auligné, and T. Montmerle, 2011: Heterogeneous convective-scale background error covariances with the inclusion of hydrometeor variables. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 2994–3015, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3632.1.
Montmerle, T., and L. Berre, 2010: Diagnosis and formulation of heterogeneous background-error covariances at the mesoscale. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136, 1408–1420, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.655.
Pan, S. J., J. D. Gao, D. J. Stensrud, X. G. Wang, and T. A. Jones, 2018: Assimilation of radar radial velocity and reflectivity, satellite cloud water path, and total precipitable water for convective-scale NWP in OSSEs. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 35, 67–89, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0081.1.
Putnam, B., Xue, M., Jung, Y., Snook, N., and Zhang, G., 2019: Ensemble Kalman Filter Assimilation of Polarimetric Radar Observations for the 20 May 2013 Oklahoma Tornadic Super-cell Case. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 2511–2533, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0251.1.
Poterjoy, J., 2016: A localized particle filter for high-dimensional nonlinear systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 59–76, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0163.1.
Ravela, S., K. Emanuel, D. McLaughlin, 2007: Data assimilation by field alignment. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 110(1–2), 127–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2006.09.035.
Shen, Y., P. Zhao, Y. Pan, and J. J. Yu, 2014: A high spatiotemporal gauge-satellite merged precipitation analysis over China. J. Geophys. Res., 119, 3063–3075, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020686.
Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp. https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH.
Sun, J. Z., and N. A. Crook, 1997: Dynamical and microphysical retrieval from Doppler radar observations using a cloud model and its adjoint. Part I: Model development and simulated data experiments. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 1642–1661, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<1642:DAMRFD>2.0.CO;2.
Thode, H. C. Jr., 2002: Testing for Normality. Marcel Dekker, 368 pp.
Tong, M. J., and M. Xue, 2005: Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of Doppler radar data with a compressible nonhydrostatic model: OSS experiments. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 1789–1807, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2898.1.
Toth, Z., S. Albers, and Y. F. Xie, 2012: Analysis of fine-scale weather phenomena. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, ES35–ES38, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00148.1.
Wang, H. L., J. Z. Sun, S. Y. Fan, and X. Y. Huang, 2013: Indirect assimilation of radar reflectivity with WRF 3D-var and its impact on prediction of four summertime convective events. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 52, 889–902, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0120.1.
Wang, H. L., and Coauthors, 2018: Incorporating geostationary lightning data into a radar reflectivity based hydrometeor retrieval method: An observing system simulation experiment. Atmospheric Research, 209, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.03.002.
Wang, Y. M., and X. G. Wang, 2017: Direct assimilation of radar reflectivity without tangent linear and adjoint of the nonlinear observation operator in the GSI-based EnVar system: Methodology and experiment with the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma City tornadic supercell. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 1447–1471, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0231.1
Xiao, Q. N., Y. H. Kuo, J. Z. Sun, W. C. Lee, D. M. Barker, and E. Lim, 2007: An approach of radar reflectivity data assimilation and its assessment with the inland QPF of Typhoon Rusa (2002) at landfall. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 46, 14–22, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2439.1.
Yang, C., Z. Q. Liu, J. Bresch, S. R. H. Rizvi, X. Y. Huang, and J. Z. Min, 2016: AMSR2 all-sky radiance assimilation and its impact on the analysis and forecast of Hurricane Sandy with a limited-area data assimilation system. Tellus A, 68, 30917, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v68.30917.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC1502102), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42075148), and Graduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. KYCX20_0910). The numerical calculations of this study are supported by the High-Performance Computing Center of Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (NUIST).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Article Highlights
• Using the proposed Quasi-Softmax function, the hydrometeors have been transformed to more Gaussian variables.
• The Gaussian transformation has been added to control variable transformation to estimate the background error covariances.
• The background error covariances characteristics of the transformed hydrometeors using the Gaussian transformation are reasonable.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, T., Chen, Y., Meng, D. et al. Background Error Covariance Statistics of Hydrometeor Control Variables Based on Gaussian Transform. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 38, 831–844 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-0271-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-0271-3