Enable rmax persistent vs per isotach perturbation #60
Comments
|
@WPringle a quick question. I am a little confused about what combinations are right. This is my understanding of the different combinations we want to try (question parts bold-italicized):
The confusion comes from the fact that GAHM doesn't use RMax, but Holland does, so why does it matter to have RMax fcst if we're using GAHM? Or to use GAHM based perturbation if we're using Holland? |
|
@SorooshMani-NOAA For the second row when we fill Rmax using regression based on NHC paper we should use the new perturbation. |
|
@SorooshMani-NOAA |
|
As for Holland or GAHM we can use either of them interchangeably. If the isotachs are perturbed then you can still use Holland it just won't have any effect. |
|
So it's really as simple as: |
|
Although I should note doing Rmax persistent with GAHM isotach peturb should not work well because the Rmax will not be very consistent with the isotachs |
|
@FariborzDaneshvar-NOAA are we currently doing Holland or GAHM? Because right now we still don't have isotach perturb available in the workflow version you have. I'm working on it in this ticket, it'll be ready soon since the actual implementation is done and merged by @WPringle in |
|
@SorooshMani-NOAA I believe that the current version @FariborzDaneshvar-NOAA running did have an old way to do isotach perturbation which only perturbs each isotach by the same distance [n mi] as the Rmax perturbation. So it does something.. |
|
Yes, but this would add some uncertainty that we don't account for, right? That's what I mean, that it might not give us improved results with GAHM. |
|
@SorooshMani-NOAA Sure it might not which is what we do want to look at yes |
@SorooshMani-NOAA I used GAHM. |
|
OK, we need to use ondemand workflow v0.1.2 and higher with GAHM given the discussion with @WPringle. Make sure to use isotach based perturbation and not persistent (in the input file) for new runs with GAHM. For Holland we need to use persistent, but we also need to use the older stormevents (1.2.10) for Holland. Probably we need to hash this out in the ensemble meeting (if we can make it next week given HPC training!) |
|
You can use the isotach perturbation with Holland too, not only persistent. In fact, we can try just compare RMW forecast vs persistent using only Holland model to test. |
|
@WPringle I think I'm still a bit confused on the combinations ... let's have a discussion sometime soon |
|
Sure I just sent invite if u r free at 2 pm CT
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
…________________________________
From: Soroosh Mani ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 1:29:45 PM
To: oceanmodeling/ondemand-storm-workflow ***@***.***>
Cc: Pringle, William ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [oceanmodeling/ondemand-storm-workflow] Enable rmax persistent vs per isotach perturbation (Issue #60)
@WPringle I think I'm still a bit confused on the combinations .. . let's have a discussion sometime soon — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Message ID:
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
@WPringle<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/WPringle__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Zo2Ylnp6VlZskm14WRECHHLZQ0e1JYgBRWui6LxjzP8bo2CIW5_wmWMtJtlLSgGxHdPLoe1OosHrbDquPxK3MScW$> I think I'm still a bit confused on the combinations ... let's have a discussion sometime soon
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/oceanmodeling/ondemand-storm-workflow/issues/60*issuecomment-2291919871__;Iw!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Zo2Ylnp6VlZskm14WRECHHLZQ0e1JYgBRWui6LxjzP8bo2CIW5_wmWMtJtlLSgGxHdPLoe1OosHrbDquPyA4jP2B$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFBHFHXECDRUYFIVVEXMWJDZRTXRTAVCNFSM6AAAAABMHHCWDSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOJRHEYTSOBXGE__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Zo2Ylnp6VlZskm14WRECHHLZQ0e1JYgBRWui6LxjzP8bo2CIW5_wmWMtJtlLSgGxHdPLoe1OosHrbDquPy2vfZh2$>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
The latest
ensembleperturbationPR (noaa-ocs-modeling/EnsemblePerturbation#154) will be merged soon, update the dependency spec to use the latest code and update the scripts to add the option for using persistent vs per isotach perturbation that is implemented by @WPringleThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: