Add AVHRR/NOAA-15/18/19 assimilation to end-to-end GDASApp validation#997
Conversation
BrettHoover-NOAA
requested review from
ADCollard,
CoryMartin-NOAA,
PraveenKumar-NOAA,
RussTreadon-NOAA,
XuanliLi-NOAA,
azadeh-gh,
emilyhcliu,
nicholasesposito and
xincjin-NOAA
RussTreadon-NOAA
left a comment
RussTreadon-NOAA
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Installed feature/add_avhrr_satwinds on Orion inside g-w develop at 6c5065e. Run JEDI ATM CI for 2024022318 through 2023022400. Configure parm/atm/obs/lists/gdas_prototype_3d.yaml.j2 to only process satwind_avhrr_n*. JEDI variational and local ensemble DA processed avhrr n15, n18, and n19 AMVs. Diagnostic files created and tar'd.
Approve.
…/ioda/bufr2ioda/bufr2ioda_satwind_amv_avhrr.py for some zero-impact typos
|
@RussTreadon-NOAA - looks like your approval was automatically dismissed after I submitted a small update, may need it again |
merge with develop
…EMC/GDASApp into feature/add_avhrr_satwinds merge with remote
emilyhcliu
left a comment
emilyhcliu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked the branch and ran in global-workflow.
The results look good, comparable to GSI.
Approved
* upstream/develop: remove seviri from gdas_prototype_3d yaml (#1043) Fix GW jjob tests for upcoming GW PR #2420 (#1041) Fix test output for fv3jedi_fv3inc.h (#1039) Run g-w linker script before ctest for prepoceanobs task (#1034) Update femps and fv3-jedi-lm (#1036) Add ability for JEDI-to-FV3 increment converter to process ensembles (#1022) Add AVHRR/NOAA-15/18/19 assimilation to end-to-end GDASApp validation (#997) Catch error when trying to copy missing obs files from DATA to ROTDIR in prepoceanobs (#1028)
|
@BrettHoover-NOAA I have two questions for AVHRR winds. For 2021080100, we also have AVHRR AMVs from MetOP-A and MetOp-B. Here is the convinfo valid for 2021080100 For current operational, we do not assimilate AVHRR from NOAA satellites anymore. But it is still registrated in the convinfo file. It is a bit odd. I see AVHRR winds from NOAA-15, 18, and 19 in the satwnd bufr dump file (NC005080). The MetOp-B and MetOp-C are in the same dump file under NC005081. Current OPS (v16.3.14) Thanks!! |
Oh, I see. I checked the NC005080 (NOAA AVHRR winds) in the current operational run. There are very few data points in the satwnd dump file from Nc005080 (~800 points). I understand now why we do not see AVHHR winds from NOAA satellites assimilated. But since we are still using AVHRR radiance data from NOAA satellites. What went wrong with the AVHRR AVMs from NOAA satellites (just curious)? |
|
Hi Emily,
I am going to go back and fill in missing AMV subtypes now that we have all
of the basic types working (except for Leo/Geo), some of which will require
running other test-dates. I have test YAMLs for MetOp AVHRR ready and will
deploy in a separate PR to add them in along with necessary modifications
to the existing AVHRR satwind code. There are more GEO subtypes that need
to be added in as well.
Both MODIS and n15/18/19 AVHRR satwinds were recently discontinued and
feeds are being shut down, which is why you may only see a few of them in
current diag files.
*Brett Hoover*
Physical Scientist III, Contractor with Lynker in support of
NOAA NWS/NCEP/EMC | U.S. Department of Commerce
Office: (920) 541-7650
…On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:24 PM emilyhcliu ***@***.***> wrote:
@BrettHoover-NOAA <https://github.com/BrettHoover-NOAA> I have two
questions for AVHRR winds. For 2021080100, we also have AVHRR AMVs from
MetOP-A and MetOp-B. I dumped out the satwnd bufr file and found that we
have SAIDs: 206, 209, 233, 3, 4 (they are NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19,
MetOp-A, and MetOp-B, respectively) *Do you plan to add AVHRR from MetOp
satellites later?*
Here is the convinfo valid for 2021080100
uv 244 3 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 4 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 5 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 206 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 207 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 209 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 223 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
For current operational, we do not assimilate AVHRR from NOAA satellites
anymore. But it is still registrated in the convinfo file. It is a bit odd.
I see AVHRR winds from NOAA-15, 18, and 19 in the satwnd bufr dump file
(NC005080). The MetOp-B and MetOp-C are in the same dump file under
NC005081. *Is there any reason we do not use AVHRR winds from NOAA
satellites anymore?* (we are still using AVHRR radiance data from NOAA
satellites NOAA-19 and NOAA-18).
Current OPS (v16.3.14)
uv 244 3 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 4 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 5 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 206 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 207 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 209 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
uv 244 223 1 3.0 0 0 0 2.5 20.0 1.4 2.5 0.005000 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 15 -8
Thanks!!
Oh, I see. I checked the NC005080 (NOAA AVHRR winds) in the current
operational run. There are very few data points in the satwnd dump file
from Nc005080 (~800 points). I understand now why we do not see AVHHR winds
from NOAA satellites assimilated. But since we are still using AVHRR
radiance data from NOAA satellites. What went wrong with the AVHRR AVMs
from NOAA satellites (just curious)?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#997 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AXNDXO7SGJOTDUMC6WN4QYDY6GRRVAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJOTXACVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRXGM4DQNBWGM>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@BrettHoover-NOAA Thanks for your explanation. Your plan is good. We have some other data types that also need more recent dates for validation (e.g. GOES ABI radiances ..etc). The date we are using is 2024021900. If you do not have a preferred date in mind, please also use 2024021900. |
…#997) Adding satwinds from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) from NOAA-15/18/19 to GDASApp end-to-end testing new files include: parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n15.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-15 satwinds (jinja2 standard) parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n18.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-18 satwinds (jinja2 standard) parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n19.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-19 satwinds (jinja2 standard) parm/ioda/bufr2ioda/bufr2ioda_satwind_amv_avhrr.json: JSON containing data format, sensor, and satellite information for AVHRR NOAA-15/18/19 satwinds ush/ioda/bufr2ioda/bufr2ioda_satwind_amv_avhrr.py: bufr2ioda code for extracting AVHRR NOAA-15/18/19 satwinds from BUFR See #996 for testing results. JEDI/GSI comparisons look good with GSI thinning turned off, but there are large ob-count disparities both before and after QC when comparing GSI+thinning to JEDI+thinning. --------- Co-authored-by: Brett Hoover <bhoover@Orion-login-1.HPC.MsState.Edu>
5 participants
Adding satwinds from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) from NOAA-15/18/19 to GDASApp end-to-end testing
new files include:
parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n15.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-15 satwinds (jinja2 standard)
parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n18.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-18 satwinds (jinja2 standard)
parm/atm/obs/config/satwind_avhrr_n19.yaml.j2: QC filter YAML for AVHRR NOAA-19 satwinds (jinja2 standard)
parm/ioda/bufr2ioda/bufr2ioda_satwind_amv_avhrr.json: JSON containing data format, sensor, and satellite information for AVHRR NOAA-15/18/19 satwinds
ush/ioda/bufr2ioda/bufr2ioda_satwind_amv_avhrr.py: bufr2ioda code for extracting AVHRR NOAA-15/18/19 satwinds from BUFR
See #996 for testing results. JEDI/GSI comparisons look good with GSI thinning turned off, but there are large ob-count disparities both before and after QC when comparing GSI+thinning to JEDI+thinning.