-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
sfcship (q, tsen, p) validation and QC flowcharts #82
Comments
sfcship_tsen Yamlobs space: obs operator: obs post filters: 1. Observation range sanity check
2. Reject all ObsType 183
3. Reject data based on PreQC
4. Inflate obs error based on obs type
5. Calculate obs error inflation factors for duplicated observations at the same location
6. error inflation based on vertical spacing (subroutine errormod in qcmod.f90) for airTemperature and specific humidity
7. gross check based on QM
8. Inflate obs error based on duplicate check
|
To check the HofX values. I selected a location that the JEDI-GSI_HofX was non zero(-0.000335): y is specific humidity and x is pressure y = y1 + ((y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)) * (x - x1) y= 0.008215723306861987 So base on this value the JEDI HofX 0.008216 is more accurate |
Checking the values for sfcship_tsen, showed that the pressure value is always higher than air_pressure value in the geoval file, for each location. So the values of JEDI and GSI HofX are as same as the first air_temperature value in the geoval file. |
@azadeh-gh Thanks for doing this! So JEDI seems to be closer. Just for completeness, I did the same calculation for Ln(p). The result is very close:
The GSI value just seems to be |
Correct, on Thursday we found that if we use surface_pressure for sfcship_q (that is the first value of air_pressure_level for each location in geoval file) the JEDI HofX will be equal to GSI HofX. But using air_pressure the HofX values will be different. |
100,000,000 Kelvin is quite the error difference! Did this ship make it to the center of the sun? |
@azadeh-gh What are we looking at here? Have you modified the YAMLs to agree with the GSI? Did you produce a new flowchart? |
@azadeh-gh So the usual background check filter does not work in this case? |
How are the obs error differences that large for temperature? |
@azadeh-gh I don't see where you have done the error inflation |
@CoryMartin-NOAA Because the YAML needs error inflation filter for airTemperature. The values of Effective Error are still 2.5 (GsiInitialObsError) I added obserrorFactorConventional that is errormod subroutine in qcmod.f90 But get below error: MetaData/pressure and ObsValue/stationPressure exist in the observation file, not ObsValue/pressure |
obs space: obs operator: obs post filters: Observation range sanity check
Reject all ObsType 183
Reject surface pressure below 500 hPa
Reject data based on PreQC
Inflate obs error based on obs type
Calculate obs error inflation factors for duplicated observations at the same location
Reduce effective observation error based on obs type and subtypeIn this case: reduce effective obs error for buoy
Reduce original observation error based on obs type and subtypeIn this case: reduce original obs error for buoy
Inflate surface pressure observation based on discrepancies betweenmodel and observations due to terrian
Gross check based on residuals
Inflate obs error based on duplicate check
|
@ADCollard above is my sfcship.yaml , it doesn't have any error inflation for airTemperature. |
Here is the updated QC flowchart for PSOB SFCSHIP |
@CoryMartin-NOAA @ADCollard @azadeh-gh
|
Commenting out the duplicate check in GSI changed the sfcship_tsen JEDI-GSI obs error from A to B A: With duplicate check in GSIB: Without duplicate check in GSIAlso evaluated the updated sfcship.yaml from GMAO. |
Review current use of sfcship_p, sfcship_tsen, and sfcship_q and add a test YAMLs to parm/atm/obs/testing in GDASApp to reproduce the GSI (HofX and QC)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: