Ultimately, the true strength of SHiELD is that all of these
characteristics are demonstrated in the same modeling system.
SHiELD is designed to be an experimental research modeling system, with
a particular set of scientific goals set by its developers, and thereby
is more restricted in scope than the GFS, HAFS, RFS, and other
general-purpose models intended for operational weather forecasting and
to support broad audiences of users. While improved prediction skill is
a major scientific goal and an important “vital sign” of model
development, we also develop SHiELD as a means to demonstrate new
modeling capabilities. SHiELD is also intended to be principally a
physical atmosphere modeling system and is not intended for research
into oceanic dynamics, decadal-to-centennial projection,
biogeochemistry, or other topics taking place at either longer
timescales or greater complexity than SHiELD is designed for.
Improvements within SHiELD can be seamlessly transitioned into other
FV3-based models that do address these topics, including other Unified
Forecast System models and the FV3-based coupled earth-system models at
GFDL, within NASA, NCAR, and elsewhere. As such SHiELD’s progress will
continue to contribute to the development and improvement of these
modeling systems. SHiELD is a part of GFDL’s fourth-generation modeling
suite (GFDL 2019, Figures 1 and 2) and shares common infrastructure with
CM4, ESM4, and SPEAR. SHiELD uses a different physics suite and land
model from the other GFDL configurations, but otherwise is constructed
similarly. Advances can then be exchanged between the configurations,
allowing for mutual improvement, seamless cross-timescale modeling, and
potentially unification of GFDL’s weather and climate modeling efforts.
A significant two-way interaction between SHiELD and other UFS
configurations (GFS, HAFS, RFS, etc.) is taking and promises to continue
driving furthered improvement of all UFS applications.
Further development of SHiELD, including both FV3 and the SHiELD
physics, will continue to improve the prediction skill of the
configurations, address issues which have been identified, and broaden
the scope towards new applications. As computing power allows, models
will be pushed to higher horizontal and vertical resolution, physical
processes developed to improve simulation quality and prediction skill,
and to address emerging scientific questions. New capabilities within
FV3, including regional and doubly periodic domains, will permit
efficient simulation of processes at kilometer and sub-kilometer scales
for basic science and for process studies to improve physical
parameterizations. We are also working on a native SHiELD data
assimilation cycling system to take advantage of the new advances and to
create initial conditions most consistent with the forward prediction
model configurations. Finally, development will continue of our Tier-2
configurations, with near real-time S2S predictions being made using
S-SHiELD, and continued extension into the global cloud-resolving regime
(cf. Stevens2019) towards new scientific problems not adequately
addressed by existing regional models or by coarse-resolution global
models.
Acknowledgments
SHiELD grew out of a major collaboration between GFDL and EMC and would
not have been possible without the physical parameterization suite,
software, data, and especially input initial conditions and baseline
forecasts made freely available by EMC and the National Weather Service.
We thank Jongil Han for providing SA-SAS, and George Gayno and Helin Wei
for providing EMC pre-processing tools and land model inputs and for
significant assistance with these tools and datasets. We also thank
James Franklin (NHC, retired) for advice on the accuracy of the wind
radii in the best-track dataset. Kate Zhou and Tom Delworth provided
reviews of this manuscript. Xi Chen, Linjiong Zhou, Kun Gao, Yongqiang
Sun, Kai-Yuan Cheng, and Morris Bender are funded under award
NA18OAR4320123 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce. Xi Chen, Zhou, and Cheng were additionally
funded by the Next-Generation Global Prediction System project of the
National Weather Service. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Hurricane Supplemental Program Office partially funded
Zhou, Gao, and Bender under award NA19OAR0220147; Sun under
NA19OAR0220145; and Cheng under NA19OAR0220146. Supporting data can be
found at
doi:10.5281/zenodo.3997344.
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
Appendix A: Positive-Definite Advection Scheme
The Lagrangian dynamics in FV3 uses 1D advection operators to build the
2D advection scheme of Lin and Rood (1996). In hydrostatic FV3 these
operators are typically monotonic (Lin 2004), in that no new extrema are
created by the advection; however monotonic advection can be overly
diffusive for some applications. In nonhydrostatic FV3 the monotonicity
constraint is not used for advection of dynamical quantities (vorticity,
heat, air mass), but positivity still needs to be enforced for scalar
tracers. We introduce a positive-definite scheme, which uses a weaker
constraint than monotonicity which only prevents the appearance of
negative values.
This positivity constraint can be applied to any scheme similar to
VanLeer (1974) or PPM (Collella and Woodward 1984) in which first-guess
continuous edge values \({\hat{q}}_{i+1/2}\ \)and\({\hat{q}}_{i-1/2}\) are interpolated from the cell-averaged values\(\overline{q_{i}}\) where i is a grid index. As with a standard
monotonicity constraint we break the continuity of the sub-grid
reconstructions across grid-cell interfaces, creating left-edge and
right-edge values, \(Q_{i}^{-}\) and \(Q_{i}^{+}\), respectively, as
well as a curvature value \(B_{\text{oi}}\) for each grid cell, which
are then used to compute the flux as in Putman and Lin (2007), Appendix
B.
To adjust the edge values to ensure positivity, we use the algorithm
below on cell i , where notation is as in Lin (2004), Appendix A:
\(Q_{i}^{-}\) = \({\hat{q}}_{i-1/2}\)- \(\overline{q_{i}}\)
\(Q_{i}^{+}\)= \({\hat{q}}_{i+1/2}\)- \(\overline{q_{i}}\)
\(B_{\text{oi}}\)=\(\ Q_{i}^{-}\) + \(Q_{i}^{+}\)
\(\Delta A_{i}\) = \(Q_{i}^{+}\)- \(Q_{i}^{-}\)
\(A_{4i}\) = -3 \(B_{\text{oi}}\)
If abs(\({\hat{q}}_{i+1/2}\)-\({\hat{q}}_{i-1/2}\)) >
-\(A_{4i}\) and \(\overline{q_{i}}\)+\(\Delta{A_{i}}^{2}\)/\(\left(4A_{4i}\right)\) +\(\frac{1}{12}A_{4i}\) < 0 then
If \(Q_{i}^{-}Q_{i}^{+}\) > 0 then
\(Q_{i}^{-}\) = \(Q_{i}^{+}\) = \(B_{\text{oi}}\) = 0
Elseif dAi > 0 then
\(Q_{i}^{+}\)= -2*\(Q_{i}^{-}\)
\(B_{\text{oi}}\) = -\(Q_{i}^{-}\)
Else
\(Q_{i}^{-}\)= -2*\(Q_{i}^{+}\)
\(B_{\text{oi}}\) = -\(Q_{i}^{+}\)
Appendix B: Split and In-line GFDL Microphysics
The GFDL microphysics, a single-moment six-category microphysics, has
its origin in the microphysics of Lin et al. (1983) as implemented
within GFDL ZETAC (Pauluis and Garner, 2006; Knutson et al., 2007, 2008)
with further developments from Lord et al. (1984) and Krueger et al.
(1995). It was later substantially revised for use in HiRAM (Chen and
Lin, 2011, 2013; Harris et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2017, 2019) by adding
the following updates:
- Time-splitting is applied between warm-rain and ice-phase processes,
with the warm-rain processes called twice per invocation.
- PPM is applied for sedimentation of all condensate species except
cloud water, ensuring shape preservation and stability.
- The heat content of condensates is included when heating/cooling grid
cells.
- Scale awareness is achieved by assuming a horizontal subgrid
distribution and a second-order vertical reconstruction for
autoconversion processes with a slope which increases with grid-cell
width.
- Additional microphysical processes, including ice nucleation and cloud
ice sedimentation, were introduced.
In the Split GFDL Microphysics first implemented within SHiELD,
microphysical processes were divided into fast and (relatively) slow
processes, where the fast processes (primarily phase changes and latent
heating/cooling) are updated after the vertical remapping in FV3, while
the slower processes remain in the physical driver. More recently, the
entire GFDL microphysics was Inlined within the dynamical core. The
advantages of Inlining are 1) to separate the physical processes based
on different time scales to better interact with dynamics processes; and
2) to be able to make the physical parameterization thermodynamically
consistent with the dynamical core. Other updates in the Inline
microphysics include a time-implicit monotonic scheme for sedimentation
to ensure stability without needing to subcycle; precise conservation of
the total moist energy; and transportation of heat and momentum carried
by condensates during sedimentation.
Appendix C: A Note on Terminology
The term “model” means many different things in many contexts, and can
be confusing. In this paper, we use the term “model” only in the
abstract (“other general-purpose models”, “NCEP Modeling Suite”) or
as part of the name of another system (“Noah Land Surface Model”,
“GFDL Hurricane Model”). For concreteness, we refer to SHiELD as a
“modeling system” which can be used in a variety of “configurations”
(13-km SHiELD, C-SHiELD, T-SHiELD, S-SHiELD), each upgraded to new
yearly versions (SHiELD 2016, SHiELD 2017, etc.).
References
Alexander, C., Carley, J., Heinselman, P. L., & Harris, L. (2020).
Advancements of the FV3 Stand-Alone Regional Model.
In100th Annual Meeting. AMS.
Alpert, J. C. (2004, January). Sub-grid scale mountain blocking at NCEP.
In Proceedings of 20th Conference on WAF, 16th conference on NWP .
Arnold, N. P., & Putman, W. M. (2018). Nonrotating convective
self‐aggregation in a limited area AGCM. Journal of advances in
modeling earth systems , 10 (4), 1029-1046.
Balaji, V. (2012). The flexible modeling system. In Earth System
Modelling-Volume 3 (pp. 33-41). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Bender, M.A., T.P. Marchok, C.R. Sampson, J.A. Knaff, and M.J. Morin.
(2017). Impact of Storm Size on Prediction of Storm Track and Intensity
Using the 2016 Operational GFDL Hurricane Model. Wea. Forecasting,
32 , 1491–1508. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0220.1
Bender, M. A., Marchok, T., Tuleya, R. E., Ginis, I., Tallapragada, V.,
& Lord, S. J. (2019). Hurricane Model Development at GFDL: A
Collaborative Success Story from a Historical
Perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society , 100 (9), 1725-1736.
Brown, A., et al. (2012). ”Unified
Modeling and Prediction of Weather and Climate: A 25-Year Journey.”Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93 (12):
1865-1877.
Carley, J. R., et al. (2020).
Advances toward an Operational Convection-Allowing Ensemble Prediction
System in the Unified Forecast System at NOAA. In 100th Annual
Meeting. AMS.
Chen, J. H., & Lin, S. J. (2013). Seasonal predictions of tropical
cyclones using a 25-km-resolution general circulation
model. Journal of Climate , 26 (2), 380-398.
Chen, J. H., & Lin, S. J. (2011). The remarkable predictability of
inter‐annual variability of Atlantic hurricanes during the past
decade. Geophysical Research Letters , 38 (11).
Chen, J. H., Chen, X., Lin, S. J., Magnusson, L., Bender, M., Zhou, L.,
& Rees, S. (2018). Tropical cyclones in GFDL fvGFS—Impacts of dycore,
physics and initial conditions. In 33rd Conf. on Hurricane and
Tropical Meteorology .
Chen, J. H., Lin, S. J., Magnusson, L., Bender, M., Chen, X., Zhou, L.,
… & Harris, L. (2019). Advancements in hurricane prediction with
NOAA’s next‐generation forecast system. Geophysical Research
Letters , 46 (8), 4495-4501.
Chen, J. H., Lin, S. J., Zhou, L., Chen, X., Rees, S., Bender, M., &
Morin, M. (2019). Evaluation of Tropical Cyclone Forecasts in the Next
Generation Global Prediction System. Monthly Weather
Review , 147 (9), 3409-3428.
Chun, H. and J. Baik.
(1994). Weakly
Nonlinear Response of a Stably Stratified Atmosphere to Diabatic Forcing
in a Uniform Flow. J. Atmos.
Sci., 51 , 3109–3121, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1994)051%3C3109:WNROAS%3E2.0.CO;2
Clough, S., Shephard, M., Mlawer, E., Delamere, J., Iacono,
M., Cady‐Pereira, K., Boukabara, S., & Brown, P. (2005). Atmospheric
radiative transfer modeling: A summary of the AER codes. Journal
of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative
Transfer , 91 (2), 233–244.
Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. (1984). The piecewise parabolic method
(PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. Journal of computational
physics , 54 (1), 174-201.
Covey, C., P.J. Gleckler, C. Doutriaux, D.N. Williams, A. Dai, J.
Fasullo, K. Trenberth, and A. Berg. (2016). Metrics for the Diurnal
Cycle of Precipitation: Toward Routine Benchmarks for Climate Models. J.
Climate, 29, 4461–4471. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0664.1
de Boyer Montégut, C., Madec, G., Fischer, A. S., Lazar, A., &
Iudicone, D. (2004). Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An
examination of profile data and a profile‐based
climatology. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans , 109 (C12).
Delworth, T. L., Cooke, W. F., Adcroft, A., Bushuk, M., Chen, J. H.,
Dunne, K. A., … & Harrison, M. J. (2020). SPEAR–the next generation
GFDL modeling system for seasonal to multidecadal prediction and
projection. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems .
Demaria, E. M. C., Palmer, R. N., and Roundy, J. K. (2016). Regional
climate change projections of streamflow characteristics in the
Northeast and Midwest U.S. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies,
5 , March 2016, 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.007.
DeMott, C. A., Klingaman, N. P., Tseng, W.‐L., Burt, M. A., Gao, Y., &
Randall, D.A. (2019) The convection connection: How ocean feedbacks
affect tropical mean moisture and MJO propagation. Journal of
Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 124 , 11910– 11931.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031015
Demuth, J. L., DeMaria, M., & Knaff, J. A. (2006). Improvement of
advanced microwave sounding unit tropical cyclone intensity and size
estimation algorithms. Journal of applied meteorology and
climatology , 45 (11), 1573-1581.
Dong, J., and coauthors. (2020). The Evaluation of Real-Time Hurricane
Analysis and Forecast System (HAFS) Stand-Alone Regional (SAR) Model
Performance for the 2019 Atlantic Hurricane Season. Atmosphere,
11 (6), 617. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060617
Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Adcroft, A. J., Ginoux, P., Held, I.
M., John, J. G., et al. (2020). The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1
(GFDL‐ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation
characteristics. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth
Systems , 12, e2019MS002015. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015
Edwards, R. (2015). Overview of the Storm Prediction Center. In13th History Symposium .
ECMWF. (2019). Part III: Dynamics and Numerical Procedures. IFS
Documentation CY46R1 .
ECMWF. (2019). Part IV: Physical Processes. IFS Documentation
CY46R1 .
Ek, M. B., Mitchell, K. E., Lin, Y., Rogers, E., Grunmann, P., Koren,
V., Gayno, G., & Tarpley, J. D. (2003). Implementation of Noah land
surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model. Journal of Geophysical
Research , 108 (D22), 8851. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003296
Gao, K., Chen, J. H., Harris, L. M., Lin, S. J., Xiang, B., & Zhao, M.
(2017). Impact of intraseasonal oscillations on the tropical cyclone
activity over the Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean Sea in GFDL
HiRAM. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres , 122 (24), 13-125.
Gao, K., Chen, J. H., Harris, L., Sun, Y., & Lin, S. J. (2019).
Skillful Prediction of Monthly Major Hurricane Activity in the North
Atlantic with Two‐way Nesting. Geophysical Research
Letters , 46 (15), 9222-9230.
GFDL. (2019). The 5–10 Year Strategic Plan. Available at
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_GFDL_External_Review_Strategic_Plan.pdf
Haarsma, R., van der Linden, E. C., Selten, F., & van der Schrier, G.
(2017). Extreme future central European droughts in a high-resolution
global climate model. In EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts (Vol. 19, p. 14128).
Hagos, S. M., Zhang, C., Feng, Z., Burleyson, C. D., De Mott, C., Kerns,
B., Benedict, J. J., and Martini, M. N. (2016). The impact of the
diurnal cycle on the propagation of Madden‐Julian Oscillation convection
across the Maritime Continent. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8 ,
1552– 1564. doi:10.1002/2016MS000725.
Han, J., M.L. Witek, J. Teixeira, R. Sun, H. Pan, J.K. Fletcher, and
C.S. Bretherton. (2016).
Implementation
in the NCEP GFS of a hybrid eddy-diffusivity mass-flux (EDMF) boundary
layer parameterization with dissipative heating and modified stable
boundary layer mixing. Wea. Forecasting, 31 , 341–352.
https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-15-0053.1
Han, J., & Pan, H.‐L. (2011). Revision of convection and vertical
diffusion schemes in the NCEP Global Forecast System. Weather and
Forecasting , 26 (4), 520–533.
Han, J., Wang, W., Kwon, Y. C., Hong, S.‐Y., Tallapragada, V., & Yang,
F. (2017). Updates in the NCEP GFS cumulus convection schemes with scale
and aerosol awareness. Weather and
Forecasting , 32 , 2005–eeting2017.
Harris, L. M., & Lin, S. J. (2013). A two-way nested global-regional
dynamical core on the cubed-sphere grid. Monthly Weather
Review , 141 (1), 283-306.
Harris, L., Lin, S. J., & Chen, J. H. (2014, May). Great Plains
warm-season precipitation in a two-way nested high-resolution GCM.
In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 16).
Harris, L. M., Lin, S. J., & Tu, C. (2016). High-resolution climate
simulations using GFDL HiRAM with a stretched global grid. Journal
of Climate , 29 (11), 4293-4314.
Harris, L. M., Rees, S. L., Morin, M., Zhou, L., & Stern, W. F. (2019).
Explicit Prediction of Continental Convection in a Skillful
Variable‐Resolution Global Model. Journal of Advances in Modeling
Earth Systems, 11( 6), 1847-1869.
Hazelton, A. T., Bender, M., Morin, M., Harris, L., & Lin, S. J.
(2018). 2017 Atlantic hurricane forecasts from a high-resolution version
of the GFDL fvGFS model: Evaluation of track, intensity, and
structure. Weather and Forecasting , 33 (5), 1317-1337.
Hazelton, A. T., Harris, L., & Lin, S. J. (2018). Evaluation of
tropical cyclone structure forecasts in a high-resolution version of the
multiscale GFDL fvGFS model. Weather and
Forecasting , 33 (2), 419-442.
Hazelton, A., et al. (2020). The Global-Nested hurricane analysis and
forecast system (HAFS): results from the 2019 Atlantic hurricane season.In 100th Annual Meeting. AMS.
Held, I. M., Guo, H., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W.,
Krasting, J., … & Wittenberg, A. T. (2019). Structure and performance
of GFDL’s CM4. 0 climate model. Journal of Advances in Modeling
Earth Systems , 11 (11), 3691-3727.
Held, I. M., Zhao, M., & Wyman, B. (2007). Dynamic radiative-convective
equilibria using GCM column physics. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, 64 (1), 228-238.
Hersbach, H, Bell, B, Berrisford, P, et al. The ERA5 global
reanalysis. Q J R Meteorol
Soc . 2020; 146: 1999– 2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803
Hogan, R. J., & Mason, I. B. (2011). Deterministic forecasts of binary
events. Forecast verification: A practitioner’s guide in
atmospheric science , 31-59.
Hong, S. Y., Noh, Y., & Dudhia, J. (2006). A new vertical diffusion
package with an explicit treatment of entrainment
processes. Monthly weather review , 134 (9), 2318-2341.
Hong, S.-Y. (2010). A new stable boundary‐layer mixing scheme and its
impact on the simulated East Asian summer monsoon. Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 136 , 1481–1496.
Jeevanjee, N. (2017). Vertical velocity in the gray zone. Journal
of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems , 9 (6), 2304-2316.
Kim, H., F. Vitart, and D.E. Waliser. (2018). Prediction of the
Madden–Julian Oscillation: A Review. J. Climate, 31 , 9425–9443.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0210.1
Klingaman, N. P., & Demott, C. A. (2020). Mean‐state biases and
interannual variability affect perceived sensitivities of the
Madden–Julian oscillation to air–sea coupling. Journal of
Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12 , e2019MS001799.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001799
Knutson, T. R., Sirutis, J. J., Garner, S. T., Held, I. M., & Tuleya,
R. E. (2007). Simulation of the recent multidecadal increase of Atlantic
hurricane activity using an 18-km-grid regional model. Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society , 88 (10), 1549-1565.
Knutson, T. R., & Tuleya, R. E. (2008). Tropical cyclones and
climate change: revisiting recent studies at GFDL (pp. 120-144).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Krueger, S. K., Fu, Q., Liou, K. N., & Chin, H. N. S. (1995).
Improvements of an ice-phase microphysics parameterization for use in
numerical simulations of tropical convection. Journal of Applied
Meteorology , 34 (1), 281-287.
Landsea, C.W. and J.L. Franklin.
(2013). Atlantic
Hurricane Database Uncertainty and Presentation of a New Database
Format. Mon. Wea.
Rev., 141 , 3576–3592. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00254.1
Lin, Y. L., Farley, R. D., & Orville, H. D. (1983). Bulk
parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. Journal of
climate and applied meteorology , 22 (6), 1065-1092.
Lin,
S. J. (2004). A ”vertically Lagrangian” finite-volume dynamical
core for global models. Monthly Weather Review , 132(10),
2293-2307.
Lin, S. J. (2013). From Large-Eddy-Simulation to climate modeling:
GFDL’s unified global-regional non-hydrostatic modeling framework. InTropical Cyclone Research Forum: 67th IHC
Presentations .
Lin, S.‐J., Harris, L. M., Benson, R., Zhou, L., Chen, J.‐H., & Chen,
X. (2017). Towards a unified prediction system from weather to climate
scale. Second Symposium on Multi‐Scale Atmospheric Predictability,
Seattle, WA, Paper 3.1.
Lord, S., Willoughby, H. E., & Piotrowicz, J. M. (1984). Role of a
parameterized ice-phase microphysics in an axisymmetric, nonhydrostatic
tropical cyclone model. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences , 41 (19), 2836-2848.
Marchok, T. (2018, April). Factors Important for Tropical Cyclone
Tracking in NWP Output. In 33rd Conference on Hurricanes and
Tropical Meteorology . AMS.
Marchok, T., Morin, M. J., Knaff, J., Sampson, C. R., Hazelton, A., &
Lin, S. J. (2018, April). An Evaluation of Surface Wind Structure
Forecasts from the fvGFS and Operational Dynamical Models. In 33rd
Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology . AMS.
McCormack, J. P., Eckermann, S. D., Siskind, D. E., and McGee, T. J.
(2006). CHEM2D-OPP: A new linearized gas-phase ozone photochemistry
parameterization for high-altitude NWP and climate models, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 6 , 4943–4972. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4943-2006.
McGregor, J.L. (2015). Recent developments in variable-resolution global
climate modelling. Climatic Change ,129 , 369–380.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0866-5