dynamo webinar series dynamics of the madden-julian oscillation field campaign
DESCRIPTION
DYNAMO Webinar Series Dynamics of the Madden-Julian Oscillation Field Campaign. Application of DYNAMO/AMIE observations to validate and improve the representation of MJO initiation and propagation in the NCEP CFSv2 Joshua Xiouhua Fu (University of Hawaii) & Wangqiu Wang (NCEP) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DYNAMO Webinar SeriesDynamics of the Madden-Julian Oscillation Field Campaign
Climate Variability & Predictability
Application of DYNAMO/AMIE observations to validate and improve the representation of MJO initiation and propagation in the NCEP CFSv2
Joshua Xiouhua Fu (University of Hawaii) & Wangqiu Wang (NCEP)
Wednesday, July 23 @ 2pm
University of Hawaii at Manoa
3
THE ULTIMATE GOAL of this project: To improve the prediction skill of Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) in the national climate forecast model (NOAA/NCEP CFSv2)
· ANALYZE the MJOs observed during DYNAMO period
· REVIEW operational models’ forecasting of the DYNAMO MJOs
· ASSESS the capability of CFSv2, GFS, and UH models
in MJO forecasts
QUANTIFY the impacts of air-sea coupling on MJO forecasting
· Experiment for cumulus parameterizations and SST uncertainty
Categorize MJO types: coupled and uncoupled
Outline
Observed MJO events during DYNAMO period
SST and MJO-filtered OLR Anomalies in DYNAMO Period
Oct-MJO
Nov-MJO
SST (shading); OLR (contours)
IOP
Five MJO events
Thanks-giving TC duringNov. MJO
Only two MJO events(Nov. & Mar.) with robustcoherent positive SST anomalies leading the convection
Air-sea ‘coupling strength’ varies with individual MJO events
4
Prediction of the observed MJO by operational models
Good forecasts of two successive MJO events
IC: Oct_17 IC: Nov_07
Courtesy of NCEP MJO Discussion Summary led by Jon Gottschalck et al.
Bad forecasts of Sep. primary MJO event
5
IC: Sep_20 IC: Sep_12
IC: Oct_03 IC: Oct_10
Maritime Continent Barrier
Weak Intensity
IC: Oct_24 IC: Nov_27
IC: Mar_05 IC: Mar_129
SlowPropagation
Prediction by GFS, CFSv2 and UH models
Nov. MJO initiation in CFSv2&UH models
IC: Nov_04
6
• Both CFSv2 and UH models capture the development of November MJO.
• Propagation in UH model quite realistic.
• Propagation in CFSv2 too slow.
Shadings: ObservationContours: Forecast
Red arrows: Observed minimum values. Green arrows: Forecast minimum values.
OLR anomalies
Extended-range forecasts of Nov. MJO initiation
7
Forecasts Initialized on Nov. 18, 2011
OBS
CFSv2
UH
13
• Propagation in UH model quite realistic.
• Propagation in CFSv2 too slow.
Shadings: ObservationContours: Forecast
OLR anomalies
Acknowledgment: Observational surface flux data from Revelle during DYNAMO period are provided by Chris Fairall, Simon de Szoeke, Jim Edson, and Ludovic Bariteau
MJO Skills of GFS, CFSv2, and UH during DYNAMO
GFS: 13 days CFSv2&UH: 25/28 days
CFSv2&UH MME: 36 days
Fu et al. (2013)
(Wheeler-Hendon Index, Lin et al. 2008)
14
MJO prediction in CFSv2 hindcasts (1999-2010)
Composites forecast for each initial phase
Observation CFSv2
Initial Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Obs(CFSv2-obs)
6.9(-1.7)
6.7(-1.2)
7.4(-1.2)
7.6(-0.5)
6.7(-1.3)
7.2(-2.0)
7.2(-1.2)
6.4(-1.3)
Phase speed (Degree/day)
Initial phases: 1, 3, 5, 7 Initial phases: 2, 4, 6, 8
11Wang et al. 2013. Climte Dyn.
Composite from initial phase 3
OLR (shading); U850 (contours)
Forecast
Observation
12
Bivariate correlation of Wheeler-Hendon index
as a function of target phase (MJO Days)
lead
tim
e (d
ays)
IOAfrica AtlMC WP
10
(Based on CFSv2 1999-2010 hindcasts)
Wang et al. 2013. Climte Dyn.
Courtesy of Owen Shieh
12 UTC Nov 28
November MJO & Thanks-giving TC
(TC05A)
15
Forecasts of GFS, CFSv2 and UH with IC on Nov. 11
Observed and forecasted U850 and OLR averaged for days-13-15
U850 (contours)OLR (shading)
16
Forecasts of GFS, CFSv2 and UH with IC on Nov. 18
U850 (contours)OLR (shading)
Observed and forecasted U850 and OLR averaged for days-13-15
18
What caused the dramatic differences in MJO prediction between GFS and CFSv2/UH?
• Air-sea coupling• Model physics
What are needed for an improved MJO prediction in GFS and CFS?
Impacts of air-sea coupling on the prediction
Names of Experiments SST Settings
CPL Atmosphere-ocean coupled forecasts.
Fcst_SST (or fsst) Atmosphere-only forecasts driven by daily SST
derived from the ‘cpl’ forecasts.
Pers_SST (or psst) Atmosphere-only forecasts driven by persistent
SST.
TMI_SST (or osst) Atmosphere-only forecasts driven by observed
daily TMI SST.
UH Forecast Experiments with Different SSTs
19
SST-Feedback Significantly Extends MJO Prediction Skill
Persistent SST CPL
Forecasted Daily SST
Observed Daily SST
Potential
20
Dependence on convection parameterization and SST
uncertainty
NCEP GFS Forecast Experiments
1. Model• Atmosphere-only GFS (May 2011 version)• T126/L64
2. SSTs• Clim • NCDC OI analysis• TMI (TRMM Microwave Imager)
3. Convection parameterizations• SAS (Simplified Arakawa Schubert (Pan&Wu 1995)): Operational CFSv2• SAS2 (Revised Simplified A-S (Han&Pan 2011)): Operational GFS• RAS (Relaxed A-S (Moorthi and Suarez (1999))
4. Forecast runs• Initial conditions: CFSR• Initial dates: 1 Oct 2011 to 15 Jan 2022 (4 runs from 00, 06, 12, 18Z
each day)• 31 target days
21
22
(Wang et al. 2014)
23(Wang et al. 2014)
OLR RMM indexAnomaly Correlation
(Wang et al. 2014)
Differences in forecast q (RAS – SAS2) with TMI SST from 7 Nov 2011
• The lower troposphere above PBL with SAS2 is consistently drier than that with RAS, even before Nov 12 when rainfall rate is small.
• The drier lower troposphere with SAS2 is related to the larger rainfall rate during the first few days, indicating that the SAS2 convection scheme tend to drive the atmosphere to a drier state to maintain the balance between convection and large-scale dynamics
• Establishment of such a drier lower troposphere with SAS2 results in a less strong convection response to the underlying SST anomalies.
24
Why does RAS scheme produce better MJO?
CFSUse an alternative convection scheme, e.g., replacing SAS2 with RAS Improve SST accuracy with better intra-seasonal and diurnal variability
What can we do to improve MJO prediction in CFS and GFS?
25
GFSUse an alternative convection scheme, e.g., replacing SAS2 with RAS Specify SSTs from another coupled forecast system (e.g., CFS), or couple
GFS to a mixed-layer ocean model.
Categorization of MJO types:
Coupled and uncoupled
Different Roles of Air-sea Coupling on the Oct. and Nov. MJO Events (UH)
Fu et al. (2014) 26
Different Roles of Air-sea Coupling on the Oct. and Nov. MJO Events (GFS)
Oct-MJO
Nov-MJO
Dec-MJO
Need Daily SST Forcing
28
29
Summary
· Only two of five observed MJOs during DYNAMO have robust coherent positive SST anomalies leading MJO convections.
· The initiation of successive MJO is more predictable than primary MJO. Major MJO forecasting problems include: slow eastward propagation, the Maritime Continent barrier and weak intensity.
· During DYNAMO period, the MJO forecasting skills for the GFS, CFSv2, and UH models are 13, 25, and 28 days. The equal-weighted MME of the CFSv2 and UH reaches 36 days.
· Air-sea coupling is important for MJO forecasting and still has plenty rooms to be improved.
31
Summary
· The interactions between the Nov-MJO and Thanksgiving-TC have been much better represented in the UH and CFSv2 coupled models than that in the atmosphere-only GFS.
· CFSv2 MJO forecasting may be improved with an alternative cumulus parameterization (e.g., RAS) and more accurate SST prediction.
· GFS MJO forecasting with an alternative cumulus parameterization (e.g., RAS) and SSTs from CFS, or couple GFS to an mixed-layer ocean model.
· Two-type MJOs exist: strongly coupled to underlying ocean or largely determined by atmospheric internal dynamics.
31
Publications
Fu, X., J.-Y. Lee, P.-C. Hsu, H. Taniguichi, B. Wang, W. Q. Wang, and
S. Weaver, 2013: Multi-model MJO forecasting during
DYNAMO/CINDY period. Clim. Dyn., 41, 1067-1081.
Wang, W. Q., M.-P. Hung, S. Weaver, A. Kumar, and X. Fu, 2013:
MJO prediction in the climate forecast system version 2 (CFSv2).
Clim. Dyn.
Fu, X., W. Q. Wang, J.-Y. Lee and et al.: Distinctive roles of air-sea
coupling on different MJO events: A new perspective revealed from
the DYNAMO/CINDY field campaign. submitted.
Wang, W. Q., A. Kumar, and X. Fu: Dependence of MJO prediction on
sea surface temperatures and convection schemes. to be submitted.
Group Meeting, Honolulu, Mar 02, 2012
Group Meeting, Honolulu, Mar 02, 2012
MJO Initiation
MJO-I
MJO-II
MJO-III
One Primary MJO Event
Three Successive MJO Events
10S-10N average OLR anomalies (Wm-2)
Observation SAS2 SASNCDC SST Day 12 forecast
RAS