GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC/GSI#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar #543

shoyokota · 2023-02-21T21:36:14Z

This PR removes forcing pure EnVar and adding an option (if_use_w_vr) to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar (#540). Regression tests for global 3dvar/4denvar/4dvar are not completed yet, but for other tests, issues are not found except for "failed the scalability test" and "exceeded maximum allowable hardware memory limit" on Orion.

Fixes #540

shoyokota · 2023-02-22T20:54:02Z

Is it possible to ask @chunhuazhou and @daviddowellNOAA to review this PR? I think they are well-qualified because they are experts of radar reflectivity assimilation.

RussTreadon-NOAA · 2023-02-22T21:09:30Z

@shoyokota , attempts to add @daviddowellNOAA as a reviewer for this PR failed. This may be due to the fact that he is not in the NOAA-EMC organization.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-02-22T21:20:22Z

@chunhuazhou <https://github.com/chunhuazhou> is also not in NOAA-EMC. Also, I remember that David with ID daviddowellNOAA <https://github.com/daviddowellNOAA> made comments in PR504.

…

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:09 PM RussTreadon-NOAA ***@***.***> wrote: @shoyokota <https://github.com/shoyokota> , attempts to add @daviddowellNOAA <https://github.com/daviddowellNOAA> as a reviewer for this PR failed. This may be due to the fact that he is not in the NOAA-EMC organization. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#543 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACD5GZZZBCIJXSVBWX6U2K3WYZ6BNANCNFSM6AAAAAAVDRPDOQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

RussTreadon-NOAA · 2023-02-22T21:37:31Z

@daviddowellNOAA, you should receive an invitation to join NOAA-EMC. If you want to review this PR, please accept the invitation and I'll add you as a reviewer.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-03-09T15:18:42Z

@shoyokota Could you please email @daviddowellNOAA and ask if he is available to review this PR? Otherwise, we will have to find a new reviewer.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-03-13T13:27:30Z

@shoyokota Could you please contact terra.ladwig@noaa.gov to review this PR?

chunhuazhou · 2023-04-12T18:23:41Z

src/gsi/gsimod.F90

-! If reflectivity is intended to be assimilated, beta_s0 should be zero.
-  if ( beta_s0 > 0.0_r_kind )then
-    ! skipped in case of direct reflectivity DA because it works in Envar and hybrid
-    if ( l_use_rw_columntilt .or. l_use_dbz_directDA) then
-       do i=1,ndat
-          if ( if_model_dbz .and. (index(dtype(i), 'dbz') /= 0) )then
-             write(6,*)'beta_s0 needs to be set to zero in this GSI version, when reflectivity is directly assimilated. &
-                        Static B extended for radar reflectivity assimilation will be included in future version.'
-             call stop2(8888)
-          end if
-       end do
-    end if
-  end if
-


Why is this removed? Is the current static B extended for radar reflectivity assimilation?

This removal is simply to prevent from stopping radar reflectivity DA in the setting of hybrid EnVar.

The static B is not extended for reflectivity DA for now, so the static B for reflectivity is regarded as zero in the setting of hybrid EnVar. This is not necssarily the best for reflectivity DA, but zero static-B (ignoring the impact of reflectivity DA in the static-B part) itself is not so strange setting. In addition, the influence of zero static-B is not so large in case that the weight of ensemble B is much larger than that of static B.

Extending static B for reflectivity is defenitely important but it is not included in this PR.

Since static B is not extended for reflectivity DA yet, assimilating reflectivity with static B in the hybrid EnVar doesn't sound right scientifically, even though the impact might not be that big. Do you have test figures to show the difference, say beta_s0=0.15 vs beta_s0=0 when only assimilating reflectivity in the hybrid EnVar?
And if you have to remove the check here, is it possible to add a check somewhere else?

I compared the analysis increment of beta_s0=0 and beta_s0=0.15. Could you see the example of analysis increment shown in PR-543_DBZ-DA-hybrid.pptx? In the test of beta_s0=0.15, the analysis increment is slightly smaller due to smaller ensemble B and substantial zero static B, but it looks reasonable and realistic.

And if you have to remove the check here, is it possible to add a check somewhere else?

I added the warning of zero static B for reflectivity instead of fully removing this part. Does that solve your concern?

Thanks for comparing the analysis and adding the warning message - this information is important. I am okay with the change and will approve the PR now.

The static B is not extended for reflectivity DA for now, so the static B for reflectivity is regarded as zero in the setting of hybrid EnVar. This is not necssarily the best for reflectivity DA, but zero static-B (ignoring the impact of reflectivity DA in the static-B part) itself is not so strange setting. In addition, the influence of zero static-B is not so large in case that the weight of ensemble B is much larger than that of static B.

@shoyokota What about the case the ensemble weight is 0.5 (3DRTMA used this setting in some situations) or smaller?
A general question, is it possible to use a different ensemble weight for different variables?

@guoqing-noaa The smaller ensemble weight, the smaller impact of reflectivity DA (the closer to the situation of zero-B for the variables not included in static-B). The weight is fixed in the current code, but I think it is possible to make the weight changeable.

Thanks, @shoyokota
It will be good if we can still be able to use 100% EnVar for Ref and similar variables while doing hybrid EnVar for other variables in one step.

@guoqing-noaa In the current GSI code, the implementation is not so simple. If we apply pure EnVar only except for variables in static-B (sf,vp,t,ps), cross-variable covariance between (sf,vp,t,ps) and the other variables becomes larger, which affects not only the radar reflectivity DA but also the conventional DA. It is out of the objective of this PR and not tested at all. Even currently, humidity is not included in the variables in static-B, so I believe zero static-B also for the other variables including hydrometeors is currently the most straightforward way. It is very interesting to introduce the changeable weight for different variables, but it is better to think about it in another PR after evaluated carefully.

@guoqing-noaa In the current GSI code, the implementation is not so simple. If we apply pure EnVar only except for variables in static-B (sf,vp,t,ps), cross-variable covariance between (sf,vp,t,ps) and the other variables becomes larger, which affects not only the radar reflectivity DA but also the conventional DA. It is out of the objective of this PR and not tested at all. Even currently, humidity is not included in the variables in static-B, so I believe zero static-B also for the other variables including hydrometeors is currently the most straightforward way. It is very interesting to introduce the changeable weight for different variables, but it is better to think about it in another PR after evaluated carefully.

I agree. Thanks, @shoyokota

RussTreadon-NOAA · 2023-04-14T10:58:53Z

As per the 4/10/2023 email sent to the GSI subversion email list, PRs must be merged within 6 weeks of creation. PRs not merged within the 6 week window will be returned to the originating developer (see GSI Wiki).

This PR was opened before this announcement . The due date for this PR is set to 5/22/2023, six weeks after 4/10/2023.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-05-04T18:57:23Z

@daviddowellNOAA Do you get a chance to review this ticket? Before May 22, we have to finish the review process.

RussTreadon-NOAA · 2023-05-08T13:33:10Z

Reminder: This review will be closed and returned to the developer if not merged before 5/23/2023

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-05-08T13:36:28Z

@hu5970 Do have time to review this PR?

Wangy1111 · 2023-05-16T14:47:57Z

@shoyokota The code changes look good to me. I have a question about the option if_use_w_vr. If I understand correctly, you intend to turn it off when assimilating radar reflectivity only, right? However, if the assimilated observations do not include radial velocity, the changed codes setuprw.f90 intrw.f90, and stprw.f90 won't be used in the assimilation. Could you please clarify the changes? Thank you.

shoyokota · 2023-05-16T18:27:07Z

@Wangy1111 Thank you for reviewing it.

If I understand correctly, you intend to turn it off when assimilating radar reflectivity only, right? However, if the assimilated observations do not include radial velocity, the changed codes setuprw.f90 intrw.f90, and stprw.f90 won't be used in the assimilation. Could you please clarify the changes?

I intend to use "if_use_w_vr=false" only when assimilating radar reflectivity and radial velocity together. This option changes the observation operator of "radial velocity" not to use vertical wind (w) even when w is in the state vector (for reflectivity DA). In the case that radial velocity is not assimilated, this option is not required to be activated.

Wangy1111 · 2023-05-16T19:57:33Z

@Wangy1111 Thank you for reviewing it.

If I understand correctly, you intend to turn it off when assimilating radar reflectivity only, right? However, if the assimilated observations do not include radial velocity, the changed codes setuprw.f90 intrw.f90, and stprw.f90 won't be used in the assimilation. Could you please clarify the changes?

I intend to use "if_use_w_vr=false" only when assimilating radar reflectivity and radial velocity together. This option changes the observation operator of "radial velocity" not to use vertical wind (w) even when w is in the state vector (for reflectivity DA). In the case that radial velocity is not assimilated, this option is not required to be activated.

@shoyokota Thank you for the clarification. I will approve the code now.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-05-17T13:03:05Z

@shoyokota Do you have a chance to look at Yongming's question? Hopefully, we can finish review processing before 5/22.

shoyokota · 2023-05-17T13:37:42Z

@ShunLiu-NOAA I answered Yongming's question and he approved this PR yesterday. Is there something I additionally should do?

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-05-17T13:42:18Z

@shoyokota Looks good to me. I will make a regression test on WCOSS2 before merging codes.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-05-19T20:32:28Z

@shoyokota could you please sync your fork with develop so that we can run regression test?

shoyokota · 2023-05-19T21:06:48Z

@ShunLiu-NOAA I merged the current develop branch to my branch with "git rebase".

… conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar

shoyokota · 2023-05-31T18:26:39Z

@ShunLiu-NOAA I updated my branch with "git rebase" again.

guoqing-noaa · 2023-05-31T20:29:30Z

src/gsi/gsimod.F90

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ module gsimod

  use obsmod, only: doradaroneob,oneoblat,oneoblon,oneobheight,oneobvalue,oneobddiff,oneobradid,&
     radar_no_thinning,ens_hx_dbz_cut,static_gsi_nopcp_dbz,rmesh_dbz,&
-     rmesh_vr,zmesh_dbz,zmesh_vr,if_vterminal, if_model_dbz,if_vrobs_raw,&
+     rmesh_vr,zmesh_dbz,zmesh_vr,if_vterminal, if_model_dbz,if_vrobs_raw,if_use_w_vr,&


Sorry, a picky comment here about the naming of "if_use_w_vr".
Without any further context, I would assume "if_use_w_vr" means using "w" and "vr".
suggest changing to a more verbose form, such as "if_use_w_in_vr", "if_use_w_for_vr", or "if_3D_wind_for_vr", etc. Thanks!

@guoqing-noaa Good suggestion. @shoyokota Since it is easy changes, you may consider to include the variable name changes in your next PR. Because the PR already exceed the 6 weeks limit and I just finished a set of regression test, I'd like to merge this PR into "develop" today.

@guoqing-noaa @ShunLiu-NOAA Thank you for your comments. Yes, it is easy. I will think about changing this name if I create another PR related to the observation operator of radar radial wind.

ShunLiu-NOAA · 2023-06-01T14:57:50Z

Test project /lfs/h2/emc/lam/noscrub/emc.lam/Shun.Liu/gsi_regression/GSI/build
Start 1: global_3dvar
Start 2: global_4dvar
Start 3: global_4denvar
Start 4: hwrf_nmm_d2
Start 5: hwrf_nmm_d3
Start 6: rtma
Start 7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens
Start 8: netcdf_fv3_regional
Start 9: global_enkf
1/9 Test #8: netcdf_fv3_regional .............. Passed 483.32 sec
2/9 Test #5: hwrf_nmm_d3 ...................... Passed 495.55 sec
3/9 Test #7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens .............. Passed 605.07 sec
4/9 Test #4: hwrf_nmm_d2 ...................... Passed 606.14 sec
5/9 Test #9: global_enkf ...................... Passed 1001.25 sec
6/9 Test #6: rtma ............................. Passed 1208.49 sec
7/9 Test #3: global_4denvar ................... Passed 1368.61 sec
8/9 Test #1: global_3dvar ..................... Passed 1489.47 sec
9/9 Test #2: global_4dvar ..................... Passed 1562.53 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 9

RussTreadon-NOAA requested a review from chunhuazhou February 22, 2023 20:57

RussTreadon-NOAA assigned shoyokota Feb 23, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA self-requested a review March 9, 2023 14:37

RussTreadon-NOAA requested a review from daviddowellNOAA March 14, 2023 21:58

chunhuazhou reviewed Apr 12, 2023

View reviewed changes

shoyokota force-pushed the feature/PR_NOAA-EMC_EnVar-DBZ branch 2 times, most recently from 7407ff0 to d66e1d2 Compare April 17, 2023 20:20

chunhuazhou approved these changes Apr 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

ShunLiu-NOAA requested a review from hu5970 May 8, 2023 13:35

ShunLiu-NOAA requested a review from Wangy1111 May 12, 2023 13:51

Wangy1111 approved these changes May 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

shoyokota force-pushed the feature/PR_NOAA-EMC_EnVar-DBZ branch from d66e1d2 to 688c3d2 Compare May 19, 2023 21:00

GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and…

f60263d

… conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar

shoyokota force-pushed the feature/PR_NOAA-EMC_EnVar-DBZ branch from 688c3d2 to f60263d Compare May 31, 2023 18:24

guoqing-noaa reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

ShunLiu-NOAA approved these changes Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

shoyokota mentioned this pull request Jun 1, 2023

Modification to assimilate radar reflectivity simultaneously with the conventional data and to tune weights of mixed ensemble in EnVar NOAA-GSL/regional_workflow#533

Merged

ShunLiu-NOAA merged commit d766977 into NOAA-EMC:develop Jun 1, 2023
4 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC/GSI#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar #543

GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC/GSI#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar #543

shoyokota commented Feb 21, 2023 •

edited by RussTreadon-NOAA

Loading

shoyokota commented Feb 22, 2023

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023 via email

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Mar 9, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Mar 13, 2023

chunhuazhou Apr 12, 2023

shoyokota Apr 12, 2023

chunhuazhou Apr 14, 2023

shoyokota Apr 17, 2023

chunhuazhou Apr 17, 2023

guoqing-noaa May 31, 2023

shoyokota May 31, 2023

guoqing-noaa May 31, 2023

shoyokota Jun 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

guoqing-noaa Jun 1, 2023

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Apr 14, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 4, 2023

RussTreadon-NOAA commented May 8, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 8, 2023

Wangy1111 commented May 16, 2023

shoyokota commented May 16, 2023

Wangy1111 commented May 16, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 17, 2023

shoyokota commented May 17, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 17, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 19, 2023

shoyokota commented May 19, 2023

shoyokota commented May 31, 2023

guoqing-noaa May 31, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA Jun 1, 2023

shoyokota Jun 1, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Jun 1, 2023

GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC/GSI#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar #543

GitHub Issue NOAA-EMC/GSI#540 Modify to assimilate radar reflectivity and conventional data simultaneously without side effects in EnVar #543

Conversation

shoyokota commented Feb 21, 2023 • edited by RussTreadon-NOAA Loading

shoyokota commented Feb 22, 2023

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023 via email

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Feb 22, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Mar 9, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Mar 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shoyokota Jun 1, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RussTreadon-NOAA commented Apr 14, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 4, 2023

RussTreadon-NOAA commented May 8, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 8, 2023

Wangy1111 commented May 16, 2023

shoyokota commented May 16, 2023

Wangy1111 commented May 16, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 17, 2023

shoyokota commented May 17, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 17, 2023

ShunLiu-NOAA commented May 19, 2023

shoyokota commented May 19, 2023

shoyokota commented May 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ShunLiu-NOAA commented Jun 1, 2023

shoyokota commented Feb 21, 2023 •

edited by RussTreadon-NOAA

Loading

shoyokota Jun 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading