Skip to content

Add changes to satwind yaml based on the satwind code changes in x0054.#776

Open
gmao-yzhu wants to merge 1 commit intodevelopfrom
feature/satwinds_yzhu
Open

Add changes to satwind yaml based on the satwind code changes in x0054.#776
gmao-yzhu wants to merge 1 commit intodevelopfrom
feature/satwinds_yzhu

Conversation

@gmao-yzhu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Satwind usages in x0054 partially turned on qc_satwind option. This PR is to add necessary corresponding changes in satwind.yaml for JEDI UFO.

@gmao-yzhu gmao-yzhu added ufo done Observation operator evaluation in UFO completer observation yamls Relating to observation yaml files labels Apr 29, 2026
@gmao-yzhu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

These new changes to satwind data usage exclude additional data, so data counts passing QC are reduced as expected.

A geoval variable is used in the satwind yaml file with different name in different version. Here are the names used for this variable: height_above_mean_sea_level_at_surface, geopotential_height_at_surface, surface_geometric_height.

Although height_above_mean_sea_level_at_surface is used in this PR, I would prefer geopotential_height_at_surface.
Need to make sure the same name is used in Geovals.

hofx and OmF passing QC for each kx (240-260) matches those from GSI.
gsi_hofx_vs_jedi_hofx_QC_satwind_windEastward_252
gsi_hofx_vs_jedi_hofx_QC_satwind_windEastward_250

JEDI effective observation error also matches GSI final observation errors for each kx from 240-260 except for 250 and 252. For 250, with 3985 observations passing QC, 276 observations have different observation errors from GSI observation errors and they are smaller than GSI observation errors. The corresponding code changes in this PR only remove observations, as shown above, data are removed as expected, but observation errors are not supposed to be affected. Comparing GSI and JEDI codes, it is seen that observation error inflation due to duplicated observations are implmented slightly different, dup is accumulated before QC in GSI while QC is considered in JEDI. I think JEDI implementation is more reasonable in this case, so I don't make code changes to UFO. kx 250 and 252 also show observation error difference between JEDI and GSI before changes are added, but with only a couple observations. With more data are removed after changes are added in, more observation locations are affected, so we see more data with smaller observation errors than GSI final observation errors.
obserror_250_gsipropressing_one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

observation yamls Relating to observation yaml files ufo done Observation operator evaluation in UFO completer

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant