Can Observation Targeting Be a Wild Goose Chase? An Adjoint-Sensitivity Study of a U.S. East Coast Cyclone Forecast Bust

Daniel J. Lloveras Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
National Research Council, Monterey, California

Search for other papers by Daniel J. Lloveras in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6519-5097
,
James D. Doyle U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, California

Search for other papers by James D. Doyle in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Dale R. Durran Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Search for other papers by Dale R. Durran in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Efforts to improve midlatitude-cyclone forecasts by deploying supplemental observations in localized target regions often fall short of expectations. We consider a potential contributing factor to these underwhelming results by investigating the initial-condition sensitivity of the 15 November 2018 East Coast cyclone forecast bust. We use a moist adjoint model to compute the initial-condition perturbations that minimize the large 48–72-h synoptic-scale forecast errors associated with this storm. The adjoint-optimal perturbations, which have maximum amplitudes of about 2 K in temperature and 1 m s−1 in horizontal wind speed, are widespread, extending throughout the troposphere and along a ridge–trough pattern covering much of North America. We investigate the most impactful components of the perturbations by truncating them in physical and spectral space and rescaling them to be equal in a domain-integrated energy norm to the full, unmodified perturbations. When the perturbations are confined to a localized target region of strongest sensitivity, they have weaker impacts on the forecast than when the perturbations within the target region are removed and the rest of the perturbations are retained. Additionally, when the perturbations are filtered to retain only wavelengths longer than 1000 km, they have stronger impacts on the forecast than when the perturbations are filtered to retain only wavelengths shorter than 1000 km. These results suggest that midlatitude-cyclone forecast improvements from targeted observations can be overwhelmed by smaller-amplitude but widespread and large-scale initial-condition sensitivities outside of the target region.

Significance Statement

Poor forecasts of midlatitude cyclones can cause tremendous socioeconomic disruption via unexpected heavy precipitation and damaging winds. One approach to improving these forecasts involves targeting observations in localized regions where initial-condition errors are expected to be most harmful to forecast accuracy. These efforts are expensive, yet they typically produce only minor forecast improvements. By examining a recent poorly forecast midlatitude cyclone, we find that a potential contributing factor to these underwhelming results is that small, but widespread changes to the initial state can be more impactful than the big, but localized changes that targeting is designed to make. This suggests that efforts to reduce initial-condition errors over broad areas can be more economical for improving midlatitude-cyclone forecasts than targeted observations.

© 2025 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Daniel J. Lloveras, daniel.j.lloveras.ctr@us.navy.mil

Abstract

Efforts to improve midlatitude-cyclone forecasts by deploying supplemental observations in localized target regions often fall short of expectations. We consider a potential contributing factor to these underwhelming results by investigating the initial-condition sensitivity of the 15 November 2018 East Coast cyclone forecast bust. We use a moist adjoint model to compute the initial-condition perturbations that minimize the large 48–72-h synoptic-scale forecast errors associated with this storm. The adjoint-optimal perturbations, which have maximum amplitudes of about 2 K in temperature and 1 m s−1 in horizontal wind speed, are widespread, extending throughout the troposphere and along a ridge–trough pattern covering much of North America. We investigate the most impactful components of the perturbations by truncating them in physical and spectral space and rescaling them to be equal in a domain-integrated energy norm to the full, unmodified perturbations. When the perturbations are confined to a localized target region of strongest sensitivity, they have weaker impacts on the forecast than when the perturbations within the target region are removed and the rest of the perturbations are retained. Additionally, when the perturbations are filtered to retain only wavelengths longer than 1000 km, they have stronger impacts on the forecast than when the perturbations are filtered to retain only wavelengths shorter than 1000 km. These results suggest that midlatitude-cyclone forecast improvements from targeted observations can be overwhelmed by smaller-amplitude but widespread and large-scale initial-condition sensitivities outside of the target region.

Significance Statement

Poor forecasts of midlatitude cyclones can cause tremendous socioeconomic disruption via unexpected heavy precipitation and damaging winds. One approach to improving these forecasts involves targeting observations in localized regions where initial-condition errors are expected to be most harmful to forecast accuracy. These efforts are expensive, yet they typically produce only minor forecast improvements. By examining a recent poorly forecast midlatitude cyclone, we find that a potential contributing factor to these underwhelming results is that small, but widespread changes to the initial state can be more impactful than the big, but localized changes that targeting is designed to make. This suggests that efforts to reduce initial-condition errors over broad areas can be more economical for improving midlatitude-cyclone forecasts than targeted observations.

© 2025 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Daniel J. Lloveras, daniel.j.lloveras.ctr@us.navy.mil
Save
  • Amerault, C., X. Zou, and J. D. Doyle, 2008: Tests of an adjoint mesoscale model with explicit moist physics on the cloud scale. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 21202132, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2259.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ancell, B., and G. J. Hakim, 2007: Comparing adjoint- and ensemble-sensitivity analysis with applications to observation targeting. Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 41174134, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR1904.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bauer, P., A. Thorpe, and G. Brunet, 2015: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature, 525, 4755, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bishop, C. H., B. J. Etherton, and S. J. Majumdar, 2001: Adaptive sampling with the ensemble transform Kalman filter. Part I: Theoretical aspects. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 420436, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0420:ASWTET>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doyle, J. D., C. Amerault, C. A. Reynolds, and P. A. Reinecke, 2014: Initial condition sensitivity and predictability of a severe extratropical cyclone using a moist adjoint. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 320342, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00201.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doyle, J. D., C. A. Reynolds, and C. Amerault, 2019: Adjoint sensitivity analysis of high-impact extratropical cyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 45114532, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0055.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Durran, D. R., P. A. Reinecke, and J. D. Doyle, 2013: Large-scale errors and mesoscale predictability in Pacific Northwest snowstorms. J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 14701487, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0202.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Errico, R. M., 1997: What is an adjoint model? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 25772592, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2577:WIAAM>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., F. Yang, C. Cardinali, and S. J. Majumdar, 2013: Impact of targeted winter storm reconnaissance dropwindsonde data on midlatitude numerical weather predictions. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 20582065, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00309.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill, A. J., C. C. Weiss, and B. C. Ancell, 2016: Ensemble sensitivity analysis for mesoscale forecasts of dryline convection initiation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 41614182, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0338.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill, A. J., C. C. Weiss, and D. C. Dowell, 2021: Influence of a portable near-surface observing network on experimental ensemble forecasts of deep convection hazards during VORTEX-SE. Wea. Forecasting, 36, 11411167, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-20-0237.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hodur, R. M., 1997: The Naval Research Laboratory’s Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS). Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 14141430, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<1414:TNRLSC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hogan, T. F., and Coauthors, 2014: The Navy Global Environmental Model. Oceanography, 27 (3), 116125, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.73.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoskins, B., 2013: The potential for skill across the range of the seamless weather-climate prediction problem: A stimulus for our science. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 573584, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1991.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaksen, L., M. Fisher, E. Andersson, and J. Barkmeijer, 2005: The structure and realism of sensitivity perturbations and their interpretation as ‘Key Analysis Errors’. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 30533078, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Janjić, Z. I., 1994: The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 927945, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122<0927:TSMECM>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Joly, A., and Coauthors, 1999: Overview of the field phase of the Fronts and Atlantic Storm-Track Experiment (FASTEX) project. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 31313163, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712556103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kleist, D. T., and M. C. Morgan, 2005: Application of adjoint-derived forecast sensitivities to the 24–25 January 2000 U.S. East Coast snowstorm. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 31483175, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3023.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klemp, J. B., J. Dudhia, and A. D. Hassiotis, 2008: An upper gravity-wave absorbing layer for NWP applications. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 39874004, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2596.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klinker, E., F. Rabier, and R. Gelaro, 1998: Estimation of key analysis errors using the adjoint technique. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 124, 19091933, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712455007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langland, R. H., 2005: Issues in targeted observing. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 34093425, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.130.

  • Langland, R. H., and N. L. Baker, 2004: Estimation of observation impact using the NRL atmospheric variational data assimilation adjoint system. Tellus, 56A, 189201, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v56i3.14413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langland, R. H., R. Gelaro, G. D. Rohaly, and M. A. Shapiro, 1999a: Targeted observations in FASTEX: Adjoint-based targeting procedures and data impact experiments in IOP17 and IOP18. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 32413270, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712556107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langland, R. H., and Coauthors, 1999b: The North Pacific Experiment (NORPEX-98): Targeted observations for improved North American weather forecasts. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 13631384, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<1363:TNPENT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langland, R. H., M. A. Shapiro, and R. Gelaro, 2002: Initial condition sensitivity and error growth in forecasts of the 25 January 2000 East Coast snowstorm. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 957974, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<0957:ICSAEG>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lloveras, D. J., D. R. Durran, and J. D. Doyle, 2023: The two- to four-day predictability of midlatitude cyclones: Don’t sweat the small stuff. J. Atmos. Sci., 80, 26132633, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-22-0232.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lord, S. J., X. Wu, V. Tallapragada, and F. M. Ralph, 2022: The impact of dropsonde data on the performance of the NCEP Global Forecast System during the 2020 atmospheric rivers observing campaign. Part I: Precipitation. Wea. Forecasting, 38, 1745, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-22-0036.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Louis, J.-F., 1979: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 17, 187202, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117978.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magnusson, L., 2017: Diagnostic methods for understanding the origin of forecast errors. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 21292142, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3072.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magnusson, L., J.-H. Chen, S.-J. Lin, L. Zhou, and X. Chen, 2019: Dependence on initial conditions versus model formulations for medium-range forecast error variations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 145, 20852100, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3545.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mahfouf, J.-F., 1999: Influence of physical processes on the tangent-linear approximation. Tellus, 51A, 147166, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v51i2.12312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majumdar, S. J., 2016: A review of targeted observations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, 22872303, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00259.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majumdar, S. J., C. H. Bishop, R. Buizza, and R. Gelaro, 2002a: A comparison of ensemble-transform Kalman-filter targeting guidance with ECMWF and NRL total-energy singular-vector guidance. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 128, 25272549, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.01.214.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majumdar, S. J., C. H. Bishop, B. J. Etherton, and Z. Toth, 2002b: Adaptive sampling with the ensemble transform Kalman filter. Part II: Field program implementation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 13561369, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<1356:ASWTET>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, J. E., 1946: Cyclogenesis in the Atlantic coastal region of the United States. J. Meteor., 3, 3144, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1946)003<0031:CITACR>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Molinari, J., 1985: A general form of Kuo’s cumulus parameterization. Mon. Wea. Rev., 113, 14111416, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1985)113<1411:AGFOKC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Novak, D. R., and Coauthors, 2023: Innovations in winter storm forecasting and decision support services. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 104, E715E735, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0065.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Palmer, T. N., R. Gelaro, J. Barkmeijer, and R. Buizza, 1998: Singular vectors, metrics, and adaptive observations. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 633653, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055%3C0633:SVMAAO%3E2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peevey, T. R., J. M. English, L. Cucurull, H. Wang, and A. C. Kren, 2018: Improving winter storm forecasts with observing system simulation experiments (OSSEs). Part I: An idealized case study of three U.S. storms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 13411366, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0160.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rodwell, M. J., and Coauthors, 2013: Characteristics of occasional poor medium-range weather forecasts for Europe. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 13931405, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00099.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romine, G. S., C. S. Schwartz, R. D. Torn, and M. L. Weisman, 2016: Impact of assimilating dropsonde observations from MPEX on ensemble forecasts of severe weather events. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 37993823, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0407.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rutledge, S. A., and P. Hobbs, 1983: The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: A model for the “seeder-feeder” process in warm-frontal rainbands. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 11851206, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1983)040<1185:TMAMSA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schindler, M., M. Weissmann, A. Schäfler, and G. Radnoti, 2020: The impact of dropsonde and extra radiosonde observations during NAWDEX in autumn 2016. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 809824, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0126.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sippel, J. A., X. Wu, S. D. Ditchek, V. Tallapragada, and D. T. Kleist, 2022: Impacts of assimilating additional reconnaissance data on operational GFS tropical cyclone forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 37, 16151639, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-22-0058.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2021: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 4.3. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-556+STR, 145 pp., https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97.

  • Tewari, M., and Coauthors, 2004: Implementation and verification of the unified Noah land surface model in the WRF model. 20th Conf. on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor Soc., 14.2a, https://ams.confex.com/ams/84Annual/webprogram/Paper69061.html.

  • Thompson, G., P. R. Field, R. M. Rasmussen, and W. D. Hall, 2008: Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part II: Implementation of a new snow parameterization. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 50955115, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2387.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tiedtke, M., 1989: A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 17791800, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117%3C1779:ACMFSF%3E2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weisman, M. L., and Coauthors, 2015: The Mesoscale Predictability Experiment (MPEX). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, 21272149, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00281.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wick, G. A., and Coauthors, 2020: NOAA’s Sensing Hazards with Operational Unmanned Technology (SHOUT) experiment observations and forecast impacts. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 101, E968E987, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0257.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, C., Y. Wang, and K. Hamilton, 2011: Improved representation of boundary layer clouds over the southeast Pacific in ARW-WRF using a modified Tiedtke cumulus parameterization scheme. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 34893513, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05091.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, F., C. Snyder, and R. Rotunno, 2002: Mesoscale predictability of the “surprise” snowstorm of 24–25 January 2000. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 16171632, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<1617:MPOTSS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, F., N. Bei, R. Rotunno, C. Snyder, and C. C. Epifanio, 2007: Mesoscale predictability of moist baroclinic waves: Convection-permitting experiments and multistage error growth dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 35793594, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS4028.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, X., X.-Y. Huang, and N. Pan, 2013: Development of the upgraded tangent linear and adjoint of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 11801188, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00213.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2743 2743 1905
Full Text Views 157 157 80
PDF Downloads 134 134 68