the geos–5 met fields: what’s new and what’s different...
TRANSCRIPT
The GEOS–5 met fields:What’s new and what’s different
Plus a quick look at some recentGEOS–Chem developments
Bob YantoscaSoftware Engineer
Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling GroupHarvard University
Jacob Group MeetingWednesday, December 6, 2006
Table of Contents
1. A little housekeeping and quick look at recent GEOS–Chem updates
2. GEOS–5 met fields (in gory detail w/ lots of pictures)6-hour instantaneous fields (a.k.a “I6” fields)
3-hour time-averaged fields (a.k.a “A3” fields)
6-hour time averaged fields (a.k.a “A6” fields)
3. Summary and GEOS–5 schedule
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 2
A little housekeeping
+
A quick look at recent updatesto GEOS–Chem
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 3
A little housekeeping …We are here to help you!
Introducing Philippe Le SagerPhilippe started working with us in August 2006
Bob and Philippe have many years of experience in working on big software projectsPlease take advantage of our experience! Ask questions!
Please help us help you!Try to be proactive in debugging!
If you can isolate any errors to a particular section of GEOS–Chem, that really helps us out.
Also please be aware that there are many things we are working on simultaneouslyGMI, CTM-componentization, ESMF, Adjoint, GEOS–5, etc.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 4
Division of LaborBob Y. will primarily be involved with software/system issues & short term stuff
Rewriting GEOS–Chem to facilitate implementation of Earth System Model Framework (ESMF)
Interfacing with NASA (GMAO, GMI, SIVO)
Installation of libraries (HDF, HDF–EOS, ESMF, netCDF) on different platforms
Porting of code to different platforms
Met fields (including GEOS–5)
Philippe will primarily be involved with long-term, open-ended, scientific projectsChemistry up to dynamic tropopause (now completed!)
New chemical solver (implementing Yevgeniy’s work)
Adjoint (working with Adrian Sandu) ???
Both Bob & Philippe will work on (for the time being):Minor maintenance bug fixes
Various user support issues
Version control
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 5
Some recent updates to the standard codeCurrent version in development: v7–04–11
Improvements and additions to chemistry Ability to do chemistry up to the location of the actual tropopause (Philippe, Brendan)
Added 2 tracers (SOG4, SOA4) to track the SOA prod from isoprene + OH reaction (Daven Henze)
HO2 uptake by aerosols is now turned off in the SMVGEAR mechanism (Bastien Sauvage)
Improvements and additions to emissionsOption to use GFED2 biomass emissions for gas phase + aerosol species
Option to use David Streets' regional emissions for China and SE Asia
Option to use EDGAR global NOx, CO, SO2 emissions
Option to use BRAVO NOx, CO, SO2 emissions over Northern Mexico
New module for IPCC future emissions scenarios (primarily for GCAP)
Near-land lightning NOx emissions module -- currently for GEOS-4 only (Lee Murray, Rynda Hudman)
Updated Hg simulationMore recent Hg simulation updates still need to be standardized
Technical updatesSupport for Sun 4100 platform (with AMD/Opteron chipset)
Removal of obsolete GEOS-1 and GEOS-STRAT met fields
Removal of support for obsolete LINUX_IFC and LINUX_EFC compilers
Various minor bug fixes & updates for the GCAP simulation
Other minor bug fixes and improvements
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 6
Things currently in the pipelineYet to be added to GEOS–Chem:
Implementation of a cleaner driver for the emissions code (from Brendan Field)
New, faster chemical solver (Philippe & Yevgeniy)
Updated dust emissions (from Duncan Fairlie)
Bug fix for SOA – save concentrations to restart file for future use (from Havala Taylor, Hong Liao)
Local rescaling for lightning emissions (from Bastien Sauvage)
Updated emission factors for “default” biomass burning (from Bastien Sauvage)
Hydrogen simulation (from Lyatt Jaegle et al at U. Washington)
COS simulation (Parv Suntharalingam)
CO—CO2 simulation (Monika Kopacz)
LINOZ – linear ozone chemistry (from Dylan Jones et al at U. Toronto)
Problems currently being fixed in GEOS–Chem:Need to apply post-2002 overhead O3 columns for photolysis
Existing TOMS O3 columns end in 2002
Improvements & fixes to near-land lightning formulation (GEOS–4 only)To fix an underprediction of the 4x5 global lightning totals
These were detected in the recent 1-year benchmark simulations
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 7
GEOS–Chem User’s Meeting: April 2007The 3rd GEOS-Chem User's Meeting will be held at Harvard on April 11-13, 2007 (Wed-Fri, ending at noon Friday). Please mark your calendars.
This will be an opportunity for all of us to meet and hear about several areas of model development and research, including:
Big-ticket GEOS–Chem development items:capability to run with MPI
standardization of the GEOS–Chem model adjoint
implementation of Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF) software structure
nested and high-resolution capabilities for GEOS–4 and GEOS–5
interface with GEOS–5 met fields
Several major scientific updates and research applications by GEOS–Chem users
Hotel and registration informationWebsite: http://www.as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/geos_meeting_2007.html
Contact Brenda Mathieu to register: [email protected] to cover travel to the G-C mtg are available! Talk to Daniel for more info.
NOTE: Boston Marathon is on the following Monday! Reserve your hotel early!!!
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 8
GEOS–5 met fields
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 9
Met field introductionGEOS–Chem does not generate its own meteorology
It reads “assimilated” data fields from disk
Assimilated data is “real world” data that is fed thru a GCMThe GCM is not allowed to run free, but is nudged back to “the truth” on a regular basis
Various observations are ingested into the assimilation system. GEOS–4 uses:Conventional Final Dump - NCEP
Wentz SSM/I
Operational Sea Ice
Interactive TOVS retrievals
QuikSCAT (satellite)
SBUV Ozone
Reynolds SST - Centered Average
MODIS NESDIS Winds
In basic terms, the assimilation system can be thought of as “interpolating” real-world onto a regular grid. Every grid point will have a value, even if there is no “real-world” data at that location.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 10
Met field introductionNASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) provides assimilated data for the satellite and modeling communities
GMAO is about to release their 5th-generation assimilated data product (not surprisingly called GEOS–5)
GEOS = “Goddard Earth Observing System”
Other GMAO data products have included:GEOS–1
GEOS–STRAT
GEOS–2 (used internally at NASA – never released!)
GEOS–3
GEOS–4
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 11
GMAO Met Field Comparison Chart
Quick Look at GMAO met fields
GEOS–1 GEOS–STRAT
GEOS–3 GEOS–4 GEOS–5
# of levels 20 sigma 26 sigma 48 sigma 55 hybrid 72 hybrid
Native grid 2 x 2.5 2 x 2.5 1 x 1 1 x 1.25 0.5 x 0.666
Native File Format
Binary Binary HDF4–EOS HDF4–EOS HDF4—EOS(HDF5– EOS after April 2007)
Regridded to 2 x 2.54 x 5
2 x 2.54 x 5
1 x 1 nested2 x 2.54 x 5
2 x 2.54 x 5
2 x 2.54 x 5
Temporal Coverage
1985 – 1995 1996 – 1998 2000 – 2002 1985 –present (ending in Feb 2007)
2004 –onward + 30 yr reanalysis
Past Present Fut.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 12
Pure Sigma Grid: Used prior to GEOS–4
σ = [ P(IJL) – PTOP ] / [ Psurface(IJ) – PTOP ]
Where I=lon, J=lat, L=alt
Pros: Sigma coordinates are terrain-following. While the surface pressure varies at each (IJ) location, the sigma coordinate for each (IJ) is constant for a given level L.
Cons: The signature of the mountains are evident even very high up in the atmosphere. This leads to very noisy winds and poor STE.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 13
Hybrid Grid: Used in GEOS–4, GEOS–5 Pressure at grid edges:
Pe(IJL) = A(L) + [ B(L) * Psurf(IJ) ]
Pressure at grid centers:Pc(IJL) = [ Pe(IJL) + Pe(IJL+1) ] / 2
Near the surface, the hybrid grid has a “sigma-like” terrain-following coordinate.
Near the model top, the hybrid grid has fixed-pressure levels. The pressure at each level is the same for all latitudes & longitudes.
Pros: Results in much smoother winds near the top of the model, better STE.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 14
Comparison of vertical grids Vertical levels up to 4 km – PBL
GEOS–3 GEOS–4 GEOS–5
GEOS–5 has much finer resolution in the PBL!
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 15
Comparison of vertical grids
GEOS–3 GEOS–4GEOS–5
Vertical levels – up to 30 km
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 16
GMAO met fields come in 3 flavorsInstantaneous 6-hr fields (what we call “I6”)
Pressures, land types, etc.
3-hr time-averaged fields (what we call “A3”)Surface parameters
6-hr time-averaged fields (what we call “A6”)3-D parameters (winds, humidities, temperature, mass fluxes, etc.)
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 17
GEOS–5 data processingI wrote new data processing software to extract & regrid the GEOS–5 data
Uses HDF–EOS reading code (written by me)
Uses S-J Lin’s MAP_A2A regridding code This is area preserving mapping (e.g. quantities per unit area are conserved)
MAP_A2A was also used for GEOS–3 and GEOS–4 regridding
With the regridding code, I have created 1 day of sample data files for GEOS–Chemat both 2 x 2.5 and 4 x 5 grids
However, the code is flexible enough to also save out 0.5 x 0.666, 1 x 1, 1 x 1.25 grids too
I will now show “quick-look” comparisons between GEOS–5 and GEOS–4 dataWe will look at the 2 x 2.5 data.
Date and time: 2004/09/20 at 0000 GMT (A6, I6 fields) or 0130 GMT (A3 fields)
CAVEAT: This is not a scientifically rigorous comparison.We will not have a good idea of how GEOS–Chem performs with GEOS–5 meteorology until we obtain 1 year of GEOS–5 met data and run a 1-yr benchmark
However, glaring problems should stand out in the plots, so they are a good first-check of the data.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 18
PS (surface pressure) – I6 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 19
LWI (land/water flags) – I6 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
NOTE: Both GEOS-4 and GEOS-5 call Antarctica as “land”. Technically this is true as there is land below the ice.
In GEOS-Chem we use LWI plus the surface albedo to correctly diagnose places where ice/snow exist on the surface.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 20
SLP (sea-level pressure) – I6 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 21
TO3 and TTO3 (Ozone cols) – I6 fields
TTO3: Total trop ozone column
NOTE: the sample data did not have realistic values for TTO3, ignore this
TO3: Total ozone column
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 22
ALBEDO (visible albedo) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
NOTE: The sample data did not have the regular ALBEDO field so I constructed it from the direct & diffuse albedo fields just for comparison purposes.
This may account for the difference.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 23
CLDTOT (2d cloud fraction) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 24
EVAP (evapotranspiration flux) – A3 field
mm/day kg/m2/s
GEOS–5 EVAP is the total turbulent flux of water vapor at the surface, including fluxes from transpiration, sublimation, and surface condensation.
The turbulent flux of cold condensate (fog) is assumed to be zero.
GEOS–3 EVAP GEOS–5 EVAP
NOTE: EVAP was contained in the GEOS–4 met data but we did not archive it for GEOS–Chem. We did, however, archive EVAP as part of the “Extra” GEOS–3 fields.
EVAP is not currently used in GEOS–Chem but it could be useful for certain simulations (e.g. Hg, CO2).
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 25
GWETTOP (topsoil wetness) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 26
HFLUX (sensible heat flux) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 27
LAI (leaf area index) – A3 field
% m2/m2
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 28
LWGNET (long wave @ sfc) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
NOTE: LWGNET in GEOS–5 seems to be a “net”radiation whereas RADLWG in GEOS–4 was a total incident radiation.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 29
SWGNET (shortwave @ sfc) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
NOTE: SWGNET in GEOS–5 is a net radiation wheras RADSWG in GEOS–4 was a total incident radiation.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 30
PARDF (diffuse PAR) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 31
PARDR (direct PAR) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 32
PBLH (PBL height) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 33
Precip fields at ground – A3 fieldsGEOS-4 PREACC GEOS-5 PRECTOT
GEOS-4 PRECON GEOS-5 PRECCONmm/day
mm/day
kg/m2/s
kg/m2/s
NOTE Different Units!!!
GEOS-4 is in mm/day
GEOS-5 is in kg/m2/s
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 34
SNOMAS (snow depth, H2O equiv) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 35
SNODP (geom. packing of snow) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 36
T2M (T @ 2m, proxy for surf. air temp) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 37
TSKIN (skin (aka ground) temp) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 38
USTAR (friction velocity) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 39
U10M (U-wind at 10m) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 40
V10M (V-wind @ 10m) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 41
Z0M (roughness height) – A3 field
GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 abs diff GEOS-5 – GEOS-4 % diff
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 42
U and V winds – A6 fieldsGEOS–4 U-wind GEOS–5 U-wind
GEOS–4 V-wind GEOS–5 V-windZonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 43
Specific Humidity and Temperature – A6 fieldsGEOS–4 specific humidity (Q) GEOS–5 specific humidity (QV)
NOTE: GEOS-5 QV field is in kg/kg so the scale is 1000X smaller than the GEOS-4 value, which was in g/kg.GEOS–4 Temperature GEOS–5 TemperatureZonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 44
Optical depth: sum of ice + water paths (A6)GEOS–4 optical depth GEOS–5 ice optical depth (TAUCLI)
Ice optical depth scale is 1/10th of the other plots!!!
GEOS–5 water optical depth (TAUCLW) GEOS–5 optical depth (sum of TAUCLI + TAUCLW)
No cloud optical depth higher than ~5km
TAUCLI and TAUCLW are summed on the high-res grid and then the sum is regridded to 2 x 2.5.
Cloud OD > 5km is restored
Zonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 45
Optical depth: sum of ice + water paths (A6)GEOS–4 column optical depth GEOS–5 column TAUCLI
GEOS–5 column TAUCLW GEOS–5 column OPTDEPTH(sum of TAUCLI + TAUCLW)
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 46
Cloud fraction and optical depth – A6 fieldsGEOS–4 3D cloud fraction GEOS–5 3D cloud fraction
GEOS–4 OPTDEPTH GEOS–5 OPTDEPTH
Cloud fraction doesn’t translate to cloud optical depth at altitudes > 5
km in GEOS–4
Zonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 47
CLDMAS and DTRAIN – A6 fields GEOS–3 CLDMAS GEOS–5 CMFMC
GEOS–3 DTRAIN GEOS–5 DTRAINZonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 48
MOISTQ: sum of liquid, ice, vapor tendencies
Units have been converted to g/kg/day for comparison to the GEOS-4 fields.
GEOS–5 DQIDTMST (ice tendency) GEOS–5 DQLDTMST (liquid tendency)
GEOS–5 DQVDTMST (vapor tendency) GEOS–5 equivalent MOISTQ= sum of all three tendencies
Zonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 49
MOISTQ: GEOS–5 vs. GEOS–4 GEOS–4 MOISTQ GEOS–5 MOISTQ
Comparison of MOISTQ fields
MOISTQ is provided in GEOS–4
MOISTQ has been computed from DQIDTMST, DQVDTMST, DQLDTMST in GEOS–5
Zonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 50
DQRCON, DQRLSC – A6 fieldsGEOS–5 DQRCON GEOS–5 DQRLSC
DQRCON = layer production rate of preciptating condensate from
convective processes.
DQRLSC = layer production rate of precipitating condensate from
large-scale processes
Includes both liquid & frozen precipitating condensate but not
the cloud condensates.
DQRCON, DQRLSC are only in GEOS–5. They were not included in GEOS–4. They could help us improve the GEOS–Chem rainout parameterization.
Zonal Means
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 51
GEOS–5 met fields: summaryWe looked GEOS–5 vs. GEOS–4 data at ~ 0 GMT on 2004/09/20
For EVAP, CLDMAS, DTRAIN we had to compare to 2002/09/20 in GEOS–3
Some GEOS–5 fields have significant differences than in GEOS–4 Root cause: different cloud & convection package in GEOS–5 ?
Different land model or landtype database in GEOS–5?
GEOS–5 optical depth looks better than GEOS–4 The cloud optical depth at 5 km altitude and higher is present in GEOS–5, where this was “mysteriously” absent in GEOS–4.
Changes in GMAO met fields from one version to another often require modifications in GEOS–Chem on our part
There is always something a little bit different
Fields are in different files data extraction codes have to be rewritten
Units are different, must be converted, etc.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 52
GEOS–5 scheduleReprocessing of “historical” GEOS–5 data:
May 1 2004 – March 31, 2005 (done by Dec 2006)
March 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 (done by January 2007)
Feb 15, 2006 – forward (will catch up to real-time in late December, 2006)
There will be 1.5 months of real-time overlap between GEOS–4 and GEOS–5. GEOS–4 will end in mid-February, 2007.
In late April, 2007, GEOS–5 met fields will change from HDF4–EOS to HDF5–EOS file format
HDF5–EOS is incompatible with HDF4–EOS. Chief advantage is that HDF5–EOS allows you to store more than 2GB per file.
File format switch will coincide with “MERRA”, which is the long-term reanalysis with GEOS–5 (1970’s – present)
This will require further modification to our data processing code (swap out HDF4–EOS modules and insert HDF5–EOS modules.
This should be a minor software change, as we do already have HDF5–EOS libraries and software installed here at Harvard.
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 53
Extra Slides
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 54
GEOS–1: 1st generation met dataGEOS–1 parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NASA/GSFC GEOS–1 GCM
Temporal coverage: 1985 – 1995
Native horizontal grid: 2o lat x 2.5o lon
Native vertical grid: 20 pure-sigma layers, model top at 10 hPa
Native file format: NASA PHOENIX format (binary Fortran unformatted)
We regridded to: 4o lat x 5o lon, 20 pure-sigma layers
Pros: •Long temporal coverage (10 years)
Cons: •Very low model top (10 hPa)•Strat-trop exchange was too fast by 2-3X
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 55
GEOS–STRAT: continuation of GEOS–1 GEOS–STRAT parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NASA/GSFC GEOS–1 GCM
Temporal coverage: 1996 – 1997 (some 1998)
Native horizontal grid: 2o lat x 2.5o lon
Native vertical grid: 46 pure-sigma layers, model top at 0.1 hPa
Native file format: NASA PHOENIX format (binary Fortran unformatted)
We regridded to: 2o lat x 2.5o lon, 26 pure-sigma layers4o lat x 5o lon, 26 pure-sigma layers
Pros: •Higher model top, better stratospheric representation
Cons: •Vertical grid did not correspond to GEOS–1•STE still too fast by 2-3X•Surface data had a 6-hr temporal resolution, we had to interpolate to a 3-hr temporal resolution ourselves
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 56
GEOS–2: A research dataset GEOS–2 parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NASA/GSFC GEOS–2 GCM
Temporal coverage: Data was never released outside of NASA
Native horizontal grid 2o lat x 2.5o lon
Native vertical grid 70 pure-sigma layers, model top at 0.01 hPa
Native file format NASA PHOENIX format (binary Fortran unformatted)
We regridded to: N/A
Pros: N/A
Cons: N/A
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 57
GEOS–3: 1st high-resolution met data GEOS–3 parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NASA/GSFC GEOS–3 GCM
Temporal coverage: 2000 – 2002 (with some non-std data for 1998)
Native horizontal grid: 1o lat x 1o lon
Native vertical grid: 48 sigma layers, model top at 0.01 hPa
Native file format: HDF4–EOS gridded files(Output data was on pressure levels, not sigma levels)
We regridded to: 1o x 1o nested grids; 2o x 2.5o; 4o x 5o w/ 48 sigma layers
Pros: •High resolution made 1o x 1o nested sims possible•Higher model top
Cons: •P sigma vertical interpolation had to be done•STE still not realistic•U, V winds were very noisy at the top of the atmosphere
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 58
GEOS–4: High-resolution, hybrid grid GEOS–4 parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NCAR fvCCM GCM
Temporal coverage: 1985 – present
Native horizontal grid: 1o lat x 1.25o lon
Native vertical grid: 55 hybrid P-sigma layers, model top at 0.01 hPa
Native file format: HDF4–EOS gridded files
We regridded to: 2o x 2.5o; 4o x 5o with 55 hybrid layers
Pros: •Long temporal horizon – 20 years of consistent met data•U and V winds are 6-hr averages, not instantaneous •Much better STE than any prior GEOS met fields
Cons: •Convection variables totally different than GEOS–3•GMAO was unhappy w/ the convection results•Cloud OD’s are too low J-values, chemistry are “too hot”
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 59
GEOS–5: Ultra-high resolution! GEOS–5 parameters
Assimilation GCM used: NCAR fvCCM GCM + NASA convection modules
Temporal coverage: 2007 – onward (past years will also be re-analyzed)
Native horizontal grid: 0.5o lat x 0.666o lon
Native vertical grid: 72 hybrid P-sigma layers, model top at 0.01 hPa
Native file format: HDF4–EOS gridded files (with SZIP data compression)will switch to HDF5–EOS after April 2007
We will regrid to: 2o x 2.5o; 4o x 5o with 72 hybrid P-sigma layersAlso higher resolution if required
Pros: •High resolution will facilitate comparison to satellites•Convection, optical depth probably better than in GEOS–4
Cons: •1 day of “raw” data files = 3 GB! •Regridded data will also require a lot of storage
Nov 29 2006 Bob Y – Jacob Group Meeting – Page 60