Big RMSE of 2 meter temperature

[YongjunZHENG]

Description

[junwang-noaa]

@YongjunZHENG Can you provide more information? Which application is the result from, model version, coupled runs or atm-only runs, resolution, start time model version, etc? Thanks

[lisa-bengtsson]

Could this issue be related to this one: ufs-community/ufs-srweather-app#1004 ?

E.g. running the GFSv17 suite in the "short range weather app"? If so, I suggest discussing it in that context as it must be related to some configurational setting related to that specific application. @YongjunZHENG could you provide more information?

[YongjunZHENG]

lisa-bengtsson, Thank you for your reply. Here is some infomation which may be useful to figure out the incorrect configuration in my setting. 1. I cloned the latest version of the UFS Weather Model in August of 2022: git clone --recursive https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-weather-model.git 2. Succefully built the standalone ATM: export CMAKE_FLAGS="-DAPP=ATM -DCCPP_SUITES=FV3_GFS_v16" 3. And run the UFS model for global medium range weather forecasts without any problems.. 4. When I evaluated the performance of UFS forecast by comparing with EC forecast, the RMSE and correlation of precipitation and 10 meter wind are good, but the RMSE of 2 meter temperature is significantly larger than that of EC as shown in the previous figure. 5. I enclosed two configurational files: input.nml and suite_FV3_GFS_V16.xml Best regards, Yongjun Zheng At 2024-01-25 23:08:12, "lisa-bengtsson" ***@***.***> wrote: Could this issue be related to this one: ufs-community/ufs-srweather-app#1004 ? E.g. running the GFSv17 suite in the "short range weather app"? If so, I suggest discussing it in that context as it must be related to some configurational setting related to that specific application. @YongjunZHENG could you provide more information? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[YongjunZHENG]

I am not familar with how to use the github issue editor. So I uploaded two configurational files (input.nml and suite_FV3_GFS_V16.xml) in Email. Sorry for the inconvenience. At 2024-01-25 23:08:12, "lisa-bengtsson" ***@***.***> wrote: Could this issue be related to this one: ufs-community/ufs-srweather-app#1004 ? E.g. running the GFSv17 suite in the "short range weather app"? If so, I suggest discussing it in that context as it must be related to some configurational setting related to that specific application. @YongjunZHENG could you provide more information? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[yangfanglin]

Updates committed to the latest ufs-weather-model main repository have not always been tested for the GFSv16 physics package (FV3_GFS_v16). Please instead use suite_FV3_GFS_v17_p8.xml.

If you do want to run GFSv16, please check out this tagged version https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-weather-model/tree/GFS.v16.3.1. It has been known that GFS T2m biases are usually larger than that of IFS/ECMWF, due to both DA and model physics differences. Improvements have been made in both fronts in recent years. They will be included in the next GFS implementation.

[lisa-bengtsson]

@YongjunZHENG I'm also a bit curious how you obtained the input.nml file?

There are a couple things that need to match for a given model configuration. E.g. the source code (could be a tag), a namelist, the field_table (table of prognostic tracers) and initial conditions. If you run the model outside of a workflow that provides this, you may see unexpected results.

[YongjunZHENG]

@lisa-bengtsson I obtained the input.nml from a FV3_GFS testcase and made some appropriate changes. I enclosed the field_table for your reference. I used chgres to make the initial condition from the NCEP analysis. For example, I downloaded the following two files: https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/gfs/prod/gfs.20240128/12/atmos/gfs.t12z.atmanl.nc and https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/gfs/prod/gfs.20240128/12/atmos/gfs.t12z.sfcanl.nc @fanglin Yang I will try suite_FV3_GFS_v17_p8.xml with the latest ufs-weather-model. Could you please present me the configurational files (input.nml, field_table, and suite_FV3_GFS_v17_p8.xml) which are consistent with the latest ufs-weather-model or a stable version/tag? I would like to test whether it works. Thank you so much! Yongjun Zheng At 2024-01-27 06:01:29, "lisa-bengtsson" ***@***.***> wrote: @YongjunZHENG I'm also a bit curious how you obtained the input.nml file? There are a couple things that need to match for a given model configuration. E.g. the source code (could be a tag), a namelist, the field_table (table of prognostic tracers) and initial conditions. If you run the model outside of a workflow that provides this, you may see unexpected results. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>