Advancing Reanalysis

CRTF Telecon - 03-26-2014

Created by william.chong on - Updated on 07/18/2016 10:13

NOAA Climate Reanalysis Teleconference

via  Adobe Connect

26 March 2014, 2-3pm EDT

To view the recording for this telecon: https://mapp.adobeconnect.com/p46c3hxxkai/

 

2:00-2:05 Introduction and rapporteur assignment, G. Compo

2:05-2:30 Mike Bosilovich, NASA GSFC, MERRA: Overview, Applications and Next Steps

2:30-2:35 Xiquang Dong, U. of N. Dakota, MERRA results in the Arctic

2:35-2:50 Demonstration for creating group pages at reanalyses.org, G. Compo

2:50-3:00 agenda for upcoming telecons: presentation volunteers, data sharing, national and international coordination and meetings

Adobe Connect:
1. Click the link below or copy and paste the link to a browser:
2. Enter as a Guest with your name. Click "Enter Room".
3. Dial-in to the teleconference line via phone.
4. To share your webcam, click the 'webcam icon' at the top of the window and "Start My Webcam".
 
To hear the audio:
866-710-6541 (call in number – Domestic)
213-280-9279 (call in number – International)
5841149 (participant passcode)
Note: Dial-in information will also be visible in the meeting room.
 
To ensure your computer and network connections are properly configured for the best Adobe Connect meeting experience, please visit the Adobe Connect's Diagnostic Test page.
Notes from C. Long:
1)Take away items from Mike's presentation:
  • MERRA will be ending due to GSI not being kept up to date with current satellites
    • A method for gridding assimilated observations and innovations has been tested and will be included in MERRA2
  • MERRA2
    • Run in four streams, code is frozen, production scripts are being cleaned up (as of 3/28/14)
    • Uses prescribed SST: CMIP to 1Jan1982 then Reynolds 1/4º daily to 1Apr 2006 then OSTIA 1/4º daily (SST switches are unavoidable, at this time, for daily data)
    • Satellite simulation cloud products are included for comparison with ISCCP and MODIS satellite observations from COSP
    • Aerosol analysis is coupled
    • Bias corrected precipitation is used for land forcing and aerosol deposition
    • water vapor increments are constrained to consider global mass continuity
2)Gil led a live demonstration of entering project titles into the Project Description page and how to link to a page each of us would create to give more specific information such as PI and Co-I, abstract and images. Instructions are at https://reanalyses.org/help/how-edit-site
 
3)Time ran out before the final topic "future telecon volunteers, data sharing, etc" was discussed,
 
4)Gil wanted everyone to have the project information entered before the next telecon (April 30, 2014).
 
5) Lisan Yu will be the rapporteur for the April 30, 2014 meeting.
 
 
Please contact Will (william.chong@noaa.gov) if you have any technical questions.

As luck would have it, I was just reading the latest J Clim index, and found this paper. It looks like a thorough intercomparison of reanalyses in the Arctic, and should also speak to uncertainties.

Lindsay, R., M. Wensnahan, A. Schweiger, J. Zhang, 2014: Evaluation of Seven Different Atmospheric Reanalysis Products in the Arctic*. J. Climate, 27, 2588–2606. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00014.1

gilbert.p.comp…

Wed, 03/26/2014 - 17:49

Permalink

Mike, Does the MERRA2 global constraint on the water vapor lead to larger regional changes than seen in MERRA but that add to 0.0 for the globe? thanks, gil

That is a very astute question. It was also something I thought of not long after seeing the global averages. In the 2 degree sweeper run, there is some increasing increments when partitioned over land and ocean. Also, the variance of the increments increases in time. The problem with trying to assess this in the 2 degree run is that the coarse resolution and topographic affects on tropical land convection really bias the global land precip high. The physics just can't handle 2 degree. So we are wary about reading too much into this experiment (it was only designed to sweep through the obs, looking for inconsistencies in the engineering of the data files). TPW seems a reasonable quantity to show though, as the mean mimics MERRA and the variability seems well behaved. Also, this gives me some direction on what to look at as soon as the half degree data is available.

Mike, Can you include a link to the sources of the SST data? I am particularly interested in where you got your "CMIP" SSTs and OSTIA SSTs? I think that the CMIP5 are probably the Hurrell et al. 2008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2292.1 blend of HadISST1.1 (Rayner et al. 2003) and NOAA OIv2 (Reynolds et al. 2002). Thanks, gil

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.