For a variety of reasons, many forecast centers changed from
approximating the primitive equations with finite differences of data
at grid points to exact differentials of spherical harmonics. They
also changed from using pressure as a vertical coordinate to the
`sigma' coordinate system. This quantity represents a transformed
pressure coordinate and has several advantages. (It also has a few
disadvantages.) The biggest advantage is that it is easier to deal
with the lower boundary of the earth's surface because sigma levels
approximately parallel the model's smoothed topography. Some recent
model formulations use a hybrid pressure-sigma coordinate system where
sigma is used in the troposphere and pressure in the stratosphere with a
gradual transition in between.
Early hemispheric and global operational forecast models used
horizontal resolutions of about 5 degrees. Today global operational models have
horizontal grids as fine as about 0.6 degree (``T213'' Gaussian resolution in
spherical harmonic jargon). The number of vertical levels used by the
operational forecast models has increased significantly over time. In
the early days, they included only five tropospheric levels.
Currently, NCEP
and ECMWF use 28 and 31 levels, respectively. These
levels encompass both the troposphere and the lower stratosphere.
Historically, there were considerable differences
between operational models and climate models. For instance, early
primitive equations operational models did not include radiation
because, over short time periods, radiation effects were thought to be
small. However, radiation is of fundamental importance for climate
models. Many other physical approximations also differed between the
models. Currently, there is little difference in either the numerics
or physics used in operational and climate models. In fact, it is now
generally accepted that poor representations of physical processes are
a source of systematic forecast error (so it is important to have a
good model climate if you want to accurately forecast the detailed
evolution of the atmosphere over several days).
The DSS has several datasets from non-NCAR climate model experiments
located in ds318.0
(Table 6.3). A separate
dataset (ds318.6;
Table
6.4) contains three 100-year runs from the Max Plank Institute. All
were part of EPA carbon dioxide studies. In addition, NCAR's Climate
Modeling Section makes several simulations from the CCM2 available
(see Chapter 11).
The process of establishing a dataset suitable for the initial
conditions to an operational forecast model has been an integral part
of the operational cycle since the first routine numerical forecasts.
These datasets are the analyzed grids which have formed the basis for
many atmospheric research studies. The procedure to develop these
datasets has changed significantly over time to keep pace with model
and computer improvements. Early analyzed grids were developed using
a simple objective analysis method. Currently, they are produced using
a four-dimensional (4-D) data assimilation system in which
multivariate observed data are combined with a ``first guess'' using a
statistically optimum scheme. The first guess is the best estimate of
the current state of the atmosphere from previous analyses produced
using the forecast model.
It must be emphasized that the operational analyses are performed
under time constraints for weather forecasting purposes and not with
the objective of providing a continuous picture of the atmosphere over
time. Changes in the operational models, data handling techniques,
the data available, initialization, and so on, which are implemented
to improve the weather forecasts, may disrupt the continuity of the
analyses. Some aspects, such as detailed analyses of the conditions
at the surface of the earth, may be of less importance for weather
forecasting while of great importance for diagnostic studies.
Typically, the representation of orography in the operational models
is greatly simplified (as it is in climate models).
The global atmospheric analyses produced as a result of
four-dimensional data assimilation operationally consist of global
fields of eastward and northward wind components (u, v), geopotential height
(Z), virtual temperature (T), and relative humidity (RH) or, equivalently,
specific humidity (q) as a function of pressure (p), latitude and longitude.
In recent times, these quantities have been analyzed on the levels of
the numerical weather prediction model used in the 4-D data
assimilation to provide the first guess for the analyses. Generally,
these are sigma levels where sigma = p/ps, and
ps is the surface pressure defined on the
model surface topography. Alternatively, the model levels are a
hybrid between sigma and pressure coordinates, typically reverting to
constant pressure above about 100 mb. Analyzed fields on standard
constant pressure levels are produced by interpolation (e.g., at ECMWF by
using tension splines or linearly). Actually, the changes in the
analysis from one synoptic observation time to the next are
interpolated to update the standard pressure level fields although the
details as to how this has been done have changed with time.
Horizontal divergence and vertical motion (w= vertical p-velocity)
fields are produced diagnostically from the analyses. Once the fields
have been analyzed, they are typically initialized using a procedure
called nonlinear normal mode initialization (NNMI) to bring the mass
and temperature fields into a dynamical balance with the velocity
fields consistent with the predominant low frequency motions in the
atmosphere. Thus, analyzed gridded datasets may be "initialized" or
"uninitialized" (In some studies it is important to know which type
of analyses are being used.).
In addition to the standard analyzed variables, new global fields of
various quantities are becoming available from satellite data and/or
from the model itself. In some cases, the satellite products may be
produced as a part of the four-dimensional data assimilation process
such that some elements of the model and/or analyzed fields are used.
Examples of possible new products include short-wave and long-wave
radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface, cloudiness,
precipitable water, and cloud liquid water. Fields of soil moisture,
snow cover, sea surface temperature, surface wind and wind stress, and
fluxes of sensible and latent heat may be produced. Some of these
will have much larger model components than others. All need to be
validated. More comprehensive use of the model can result in
estimates of precipitation, latent heating, and other diabatic heating
fields throughout the atmosphere. Because of the importance of
precipitation in the hydrological cycle and in agriculture, and of
diabatic heating in driving the whole atmospheric circulation, there
is considerable interest in these fields. It is therefore desirable
to obtain as much information as possible about these fields and use
physical constraints whenever possible to try to determine them more
accurately.
Unlike the model/assimilation schemes which do not change, the
observational data bases used as the basis for the analysis effort
will change with time. These input data bases are similar in many
respects but will differ in some way: e.g., NCEP-NCAR use a
comprehensive set of quality controlled observations including the
recovery of `lost' datasets; ECMWF uses direct assimilation of
satellite radiances to improve the moisture analysis; NASA GSFC will
includes special satellite data; and NRL will use operationally
available observations only. This heterogeneous mixture of models,
assimilation methods and data will allow researchers to assess the
degree of agreement among the final products which might be
interpreted as a measure of reliability.
Initially, the reanalysis efforts focused upon a particular time
period: 1979-93 for ECMWF (ERA-15); 1985-89 for NRL; 1985-90 for GSFC; and,
1985-94 for NCEP. Subsequently, the time periods were expanded. For example,
ECMWF's < HREF="http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/">ERA-40
ds318.01
ds318.61
Brief History of Operational Forecasts
The first numerical weather forecast by computer was made in 1950.
This forecast was based upon a simple one-level model over a limited
domain. Regular or operational computer forecasts by the (then) U.S.
Weather Bureau began in the mid-late fifties. Initially, very
idealized models which made 24 to 48 hour forecasts of 500 hPa
geopotential heights were used. These models, called equivalent
barotropic models, used finite differences over a limited domain. They
allowed a quantity called geostrophic vorticity (i.e., the Laplacian of
geopotential height) to be advected by the winds. These forecasts were
useful but they could not predict the initiation or demise of this
quantity. The next generation of operational models were called
baroclinic models. These models were able to forecast vertical
motion, in addition to vorticity and, thus, were capable of
forecasting cyclogenesis (e.g., the formation of cyclonic disturbances). As
both computers and knowledge progressed, the operational forecast
models evolved. Rather than use highly simplified models over limited
areas, operational centers began using a simplified version of the
Navier-Stokes equations [The main simplification was the use of
the hydrostatic approximation] (sometimes called the `primitive
equations') in the 1960s. Initially, due to computer and operational
constraints, these equations were used only over one hemisphere but
soon they were used for global forecasts. Differences between Operational and Climate Models
The purpose of a operational forecast models is to predict the details
of the weather out to, say, 10 days. Forecast models assume specific
initial conditions (see next section) based upon the current state of
the atmosphere-ocean system. Users of these models are interested in
specific days and times (realizations). Climate models, which are more like boundary
value problems, also simulate the details of weather but do so for
much longer time periods (10-100+ years). Generally, climate models
use lower horizontal and vertical resolutions than forecast models
because climate simulations at high resolutions would be prohibitively
expensive. Climate researchers (usually) are interested in the
statistics of the climate simulations rather than specific
realizations.
Data Assimilation and Analyzed Grids
[Most of this section has been taken from Trenberth and Solomon (1994) with permission.] Reanalysis Datasets
As previously discussed, there are several reasons why these analyzed
grids have deficiencies that can limit their usefulness. Model
numerics, physics, horizontal and vertical resolutions and other
changes over time (Fig. 6.1) have introduced inhomogeneities into
these analyzed grids (Fig. 6.2). To provide researchers with a
relatively clean series of analyses which can be used to address a
broad range of research topics, several operational and research
organizations are establishing their own programs to reanalyze data
for various time periods. The following organizations have
established reanalysis projects:
NCEP-NCAR,
ECMWF,
NASA GSFC, and the
NRL (Monterey).
Each uses its own unique model and data
assimilation scheme to produce analyzed grids every 6 hours over
assorted time spans.
Table 6.1
provides a brief listing of the most frequently accessed
Reanalysis datasets.
Frequently Accessed Reanalysis Datasets
NCAR
IDGroup RES Hor(Vert) Initial
Periodds090.0 NMC-NCAR T62/2.5(28) Basic Global 1948-pres
ds090.1 NMC-NCAR T62/2.5(28) 8-day fcst 1948-pres
ds090.2 NMC-NCAR T62/2.5(28) Monthly Subset 1948-pres
ds115.0 ECMWF 2.5 Global Sfc 1979-1993
ds115.0 ECMWF 2.5 Global Upper Air 1979-1993
ds115.7 ECMWF 2.5 Global Monthly 1979-1993
ds117.0 ECMWF N80 Sfc, Integrals 9/1957-8/2002
ds117.1 ECMWF T159/N80(23 pres) Upper Air 9/1957-8/2002
ds117.2 ECMWF T159/N80(60 model) Upper Air 9/1957-8/2002
ds118.0 ECMWF 2.5(23 pres) Sfc,Integrals 9/1957-8/2002
ds118.1 ECMWF 2.5(23 pres) Upper Air 9/1957-8/2002
ds119.0 ECMWF N80 Monthly Sfc,Integrals 9/1957-8/2002
ds119.1 ECMWF T159(23 pres) Monthly Upper Air 9/1957-8/2002
ds119.2 ECMWF T159/N80(60 model) Monthly Upper Air 9/1957-8/2002
Major Gridded Analyses Available at NCAR
NCAR
IDSource Grid Region Period Update Variables
[* means many]Levels ds060.0 NMC 47x51 NH 1959-72 12hrly z,t,thick sfc,tropo,strato
ds060.1 NMC 47x51 NH 1960-77 12hrly z tropo (500mb)
ds061.0 NMC 47x51 NH 1964-80 12hrly z,t strato
ds061.5 NMC 47x51 NH 1962-72 12hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds061.6 NMC 47x51 NH 1962-63 12hrly z,t,u,v sfc,tropo,strato
ds062.0 NMC 47x51 NH 1967-71 12hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds063.0 NMC 47x51 NH 1963-72 12hrly p,t,u,v,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds065.0 NMC 47x51 NH 1958-72 12hrly w,z,thick tropo
ds066.0 NMC 65x65 NH,SH 1973-pres 12hrly *,snow sfc,tropo,strato
ds067.0 NMC 65x65 NH,SH 1981-pres daily z,t strato
ds069.0 NMC LFM NH 1971-91 12hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds069.5 NMC NEST NH 1984-90 12hrly * sfc,tropo
ds075.0 NMC 73x23 Trop 1968-90 12hrly t,u,v,ff tropo
ds080.0 NMC 144x37 NH,SH 1972-74 12hrly z,t,u,v,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds082.0 NMC 145x37 NH,SH 1976-pres 12hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds082.1 NMC 145x37 NH,SH 1976-pres 12hrly * sfc,bound,1000
ds082.5 NMC 145x37 NH,SH 1991-pres 12hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds084.0 NMC MRF R30 Global 1990-pres 12hrly z,v,t,u,v,rh tropo,strato
ds084.2 NMC T80,T126 Global
1990-pres 6hrly div,vort,etc. 18 layers
ds084.5 NMC MRF 384x190 Global 1990-pres 6hrly flux  
ds090.0 NMC T62 Global 1985+ 6hrly * sfc,tropo,strato
ds110.0 ECMWF WMO 144x73 Global 1980-89 12hrly z,t,u,v,w,rh tropo
ds110.1 ECMWF 144x72 Oceans 1980-86 monthly wind stress sfc
ds110.3 ECMWF WMO 144x73 Global 1978-89 lt means u,v,t,z,w,q tropo
ds111.0 ECMWF TOGA T106 Global 1985-pres 6hrly u,v,w,t,z,rh tropo,strato
ds111.1 ECMWF TOGA N80 Global 1985-pres 6hrly pcp,tsoil,etc. sfc
ds111.2 ECMWF TOGA 144x73 Global 1985-pres 12hrly u,v,w,t,z,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds111.4 ECMWF TOGA T106 Global 1990-91 6hrly t,w,vort,div,q
19 (model) levels
ds111.5 ECMWF TOGA 144x73 Global 1985-92 m means u,v,w,t,z,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds195.0 DSS/SCD 47x51 NH 1946-94 daily slp,tsfc,u,v,z sfc,tropo,strato
ds195.2 DSS/SCD 144x73 Global 1946-99 daily z tropo
ds195.5 DSS/SCD 72x19 NH 1946-93 daily slp,tsfc,sst,u,v,z sfc,tropo
ds219.0 ECMWF 72x37 Global 1979-89 yrly u,v,w,z,t,q,+ tropo,strato
ds277.0 NMC various Global 1982-93 wkly sst sea level
ds277.1 NMC ODAS 112x81 Oceans 1991-94 wkly u,v,t ocn /atmo 27 levels
ds302.5 ECMWF 193x97 Global 1978-79 12hrly w tropo,strato
ds306.0 NMC 73x37 Global 1979 12hrly u,v,t,q sfc, sigma
ds307.0 ECMWF FGGE 192x49 NH,SH 1978-79 12hrly u,v,w,t,z,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds307.3 ECMWF FGGE 192x49 NH,SH 1979 6hrly u,v,w,t,z,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds307.5 ECMWF FGGE 96x25< target="figures" td> NH,SH 1978-79 12hrly u,v,w,t,z,rh sfc,tropo,strato
ds618.0 ECMWF AMEX T106 Global 1987jan 12hrly rh,vort,div sfc,tropo,strato
ds673.0 NMC Nimbus-5 145x37 Global 1975   ice,pcp sfc
ds757.0 NMC 144x72 Global     sfc elev sfc
ds840.1 NOAA TDL LFM NH 1973-93 hourly mdr  
Non-NCAR Climate Model Outputs for
EPA co2 Studies in a Common Format
Group Resolution
HorizontalVariable
NumberSize
(MB)UKMO 48x36 9 2.99
OSU 72x46 9 5.60
GFDL 48x40 22 7.07
GFDL Q-flux 48x40 22 7.07
GISS 36x24 25 5.24
GISS control 36x24 7 0.47
GISS Sc A 36x24 7 4.26
GISS Sc B 36x24 7 2.84
GFDL 1x co2 48x40 22 31.65
GFDL 2x co2 48x40 22 31.65
GFDL R30 96x80 22 27.63
CCC 96x48 6 5.73
1Consult NCAR's Data Support Section for details.
Non-NCAR Climate Model Output for
EPA co2 Studies
Three Max Plank Inst. 100 year runs
GROUP Resolution
HorizontalVariable
NumberSize
(MB)MPI 64x32 7+ 114.7
1Consult NCAR's Data Support Section for details.
An Introduction to Atmospheric and Oceanographic Datasets