Figure 1.
The (a–g) horizontal and (h) vertical distributions of DWL and TDR data for Hurricane Earl at (a) 12 UTC 2, (b) 18 UTC 2, (c) 00 UTC 3, (d) 06 UTC 3, (e) 12 UTC 3, (f) 18 UTC 3, and (g) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 1.
The (a–g) horizontal and (h) vertical distributions of DWL and TDR data for Hurricane Earl at (a) 12 UTC 2, (b) 18 UTC 2, (c) 00 UTC 3, (d) 06 UTC 3, (e) 12 UTC 3, (f) 18 UTC 3, and (g) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 2.
Comparison of forecast track for Hurricane Earl from the DWL wind speed and wind component assimilation experiments against Control and best track at (a) 12 UTC 2, (b) 18 UTC 2, and (c) 00 UTC 3 August 2016.
Figure 2.
Comparison of forecast track for Hurricane Earl from the DWL wind speed and wind component assimilation experiments against Control and best track at (a) 12 UTC 2, (b) 18 UTC 2, and (c) 00 UTC 3 August 2016.
Figure 3.
The 850 hPa wind analysis after data assimilation from (a) Control, (b) LUV, (c) LUVH2V10, (d) LUVH5V70, and (e) LSH5V70 for Hurricane Earl during landfall at 12 UTC 2 August 2016. Black arrows denote wind vectors (unit m·s−1).
Figure 3.
The 850 hPa wind analysis after data assimilation from (a) Control, (b) LUV, (c) LUVH2V10, (d) LUVH5V70, and (e) LSH5V70 for Hurricane Earl during landfall at 12 UTC 2 August 2016. Black arrows denote wind vectors (unit m·s−1).
Figure 4.
Comparison of the forecast (a,c,e) MSW and (b,d,f) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed thinning experiments against Control and best track at (a,b) 12 UTC, (c,d) 18 UTC 2, and (e,f) 00 UTC 3 August 2016.
Figure 4.
Comparison of the forecast (a,c,e) MSW and (b,d,f) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed thinning experiments against Control and best track at (a,b) 12 UTC, (c,d) 18 UTC 2, and (e,f) 00 UTC 3 August 2016.
Figure 5.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed (a) vertical thinning and (b) horizontal and vertical thinning experiments against Control and best track at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 5.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed (a) vertical thinning and (b) horizontal and vertical thinning experiments against Control and best track at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 6.
Comparison of the forecast (a,b) MSW and (c,d) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed thinning experiments against Control and best track at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 6.
Comparison of the forecast (a,b) MSW and (c,d) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different DWL wind speed thinning experiments against Control and best track at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 7.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl from different TDR data thinning experiments against Control and best track at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 7.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl from different TDR data thinning experiments against Control and best track at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 8.
Comparison of the forecast (a) MSW and (b) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different TDR data thinning experiments against Control and best track at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 8.
Comparison of the forecast (a) MSW and (b) SLP for Hurricane Earl for different TDR data thinning experiments against Control and best track at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 9.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 9.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 10.
Comparison of the forecast MSW for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 10.
Comparison of the forecast MSW for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 11.
Comparison of the forecast SLP for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 11.
Comparison of the forecast SLP for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70, RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 12.
Number of accepted TDR data at different heights with different gross errors at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 12.
Number of accepted TDR data at different heights with different gross errors at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Figure 13.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl for Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 13.
Comparison of the forecast track for Hurricane Earl for Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 14.
Comparison of the forecast MSW for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 14.
Comparison of the forecast MSW for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 15.
Comparison of the forecast SLP for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 15.
Comparison of the forecast SLP for Hurricane Earl from Control, LSH5V70 + RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9G10, LSH5V70 + RH9G08, and LSH5V70 + RH9G05 at (a) 18 UTC 2, (b) 00 UTC 3, (c) 06 UTC 3, (d) 12 UTC 3, (e) 18 UTC 3, and (f) 00 UTC 4 August 2016.
Figure 16.
The distribution of O-B (observation minus background) and O-A (observation minus analysis) against (a) DWL wind speeds and (b) TDR radial winds for experiments LSH5V70, RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9G08 at 18 UTC 2 August 2016. The details of the black box in (b) have been enlarged.
Figure 16.
The distribution of O-B (observation minus background) and O-A (observation minus analysis) against (a) DWL wind speeds and (b) TDR radial winds for experiments LSH5V70, RH9, LSH5V70 + RH9, and LSH5V70 + RH9G08 at 18 UTC 2 August 2016. The details of the black box in (b) have been enlarged.
Figure 17.
The 1500 m wind from (a) NOAA Doppler radar, (b) Control, (c) LSH5V70, (d) RH9, (e) LSH5V70 + RH9, and (f) LSH5V70 + RH9G08 for Hurricane Earl during landfall at 21 UTC 3 August 2016. The white contour line represents winds over 28 m·s−1 for observations and simulations.
Figure 17.
The 1500 m wind from (a) NOAA Doppler radar, (b) Control, (c) LSH5V70, (d) RH9, (e) LSH5V70 + RH9, and (f) LSH5V70 + RH9G08 for Hurricane Earl during landfall at 21 UTC 3 August 2016. The white contour line represents winds over 28 m·s−1 for observations and simulations.
Figure 18.
Wind field of a vertical cross-section of Earl at 2100 UTC 3 August 2016 from (a) NOAA Doppler radar, (b) Control, (c) LSH5V70, (d) RH9, (e) LSH5V70 + RH9, and (f) LSH5V70 + RH9G08.
Figure 18.
Wind field of a vertical cross-section of Earl at 2100 UTC 3 August 2016 from (a) NOAA Doppler radar, (b) Control, (c) LSH5V70, (d) RH9, (e) LSH5V70 + RH9, and (f) LSH5V70 + RH9G08.
Table 1.
Configurations for all assimilation experiments. “ADP” represents ADP conventional data. DWL observed wind speed u and v components is represented by “u” and “v” in the table. The data assimilated in the experiment is marked with “X” in the table.
Table 1.
Configurations for all assimilation experiments. “ADP” represents ADP conventional data. DWL observed wind speed u and v components is represented by “u” and “v” in the table. The data assimilated in the experiment is marked with “X” in the table.
Experiments | | | DWL | | | ADP | | TDR | |
---|
u | v | Wind Speed | Horizontal Thinning Distance | Vertical Thinning Distance | Radial Wind | Horizontal Thinning | Gross Error |
---|
Control | | | | | | X | | | |
LUV | X | X | | | | X | | | |
LUVH2V10 | X | X | | 2 km | 10 hPa | X | | | |
LUVH5V70 | X | X | | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V10 | | | X | 5 km | 10 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V50 | | | X | 5 km | 50 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V60 | | | X | 5 km | 60 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V70 | | | X | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V80 | | | X | 5 km | 80 hPa | X | | | |
LSH5V100 | | | X | 5 km | 100 hPa | X | | | |
LSH2V70 | | | X | 2 km | 70 hPa | X | | | |
LSH10V70 | | | X | 10 km | 70 hPa | X | | | |
RH5 | | | | | | X | X | 5 km | 2.0 |
RH9 | | | | | | X | X | 9 km | 2.0 |
RH20 | | | | | | X | X | 20 km | 2.0 |
RH50 | | | | | | X | X | 50 km | 2.0 |
LSH5V70 + RH9 | | | X | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | X | 9 km | 2.0 |
LSH5V70 + RH9G10 | | | X | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | X | 9 km | 1.0 |
LSH5V70 + RH9G08 | | | X | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | X | 9 km | 0.8 |
LSH5V70 + RH9G05 | | | X | 5 km | 70 hPa | X | X | 9 km | 0.5 |
Table 2.
Mean 36 h forecast errors from lidar wind speed and wind component data assimilation experiments.
Table 2.
Mean 36 h forecast errors from lidar wind speed and wind component data assimilation experiments.
36 h Errors | Control | LUV | LUVH2V10 | LUVH5V70 | LSH5V70 |
---|
Track errors (km) | 45.1 | 76.0 | 81.1 | 72.4 | 40.6 |
MSW errors (knot) | −10.2 | −11.9 | −7.9 | −10.0 | −1.9 |
SLP errors (hPa) | 7.2 | 10.4 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 2.2 |
Table 3.
The 36 h forecast errors from data thinning experiments with lidar wind-speed data assimilation at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
Table 3.
The 36 h forecast errors from data thinning experiments with lidar wind-speed data assimilation at 12 UTC 2 August 2016.
36 h Errors | Control | LSH5V10 | LSH5V50 | LSH5V60 | LSH5V70 |
---|
Track errors (km) | 34.8 | 44.7 | 35.2 | 31.6 | 29.8 |
MSW errors (knot) | −3.5 | −2.1 | −1.0 | −3.2 | 1.6 |
SLP errors (hPa) | 4.8 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 4.4 | 1.5 |
| LSH5V80 | LSH5V100 | LSH2V70 | LSH10V70 | LS |
Track errors (km) | 32.7 | 28.2 | 33.9 | 23.5 | 40.0 |
MSW errors (knot) | −1.0 | −0.8 | 0.5 | 2.3 | −4.9 |
SLP errors (hPa) | 2.7 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 4.9 |
Table 4.
The 36 h forecast errors from data thinning experiments with radar radial wind assimilation at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
Table 4.
The 36 h forecast errors from data thinning experiments with radar radial wind assimilation at 18 UTC 2 August 2016.
36 h Errors | Control | RH5 | RH9 | RH20 | RH50 |
---|
Track errors (km) | 42.7 | 34.3 | 35.6 | 32.2 | 46.3 |
MSW errors (knot) | −13.9 | −12.6 | −9.6 | −9.5 | −10.8 |
SLP errors (hPa) | 9.4 | 8.6 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 8.4 |
Table 5.
The mean 36 h forecast errors from lidar wind speed and/or radar data and combined data assimilation with different gross errors of radar radial wind.
Table 5.
The mean 36 h forecast errors from lidar wind speed and/or radar data and combined data assimilation with different gross errors of radar radial wind.
36 h Errors | Control | LSH5V70 | R9 | LSH5V70 + R9 | LSH5V70 + R9G10 |
---|
Track errors (km) | 63.3 | 61.8 | 45.7 | 52.8 | 49.9 |
MSW errors (knot) | −9.1 | −4.2 | −9.3 | −7.1 | −7.4 |
SLP errors (hPa) | 3.3 | −1.1 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 1.3 |