• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Added-value of GEO-hyperspectral Infrared Radiances for Local Severe Storm Forecasts Using the Hybrid OSSE Method

    2021-07-08 09:29:14PeiWANGZhenglongLIJunLIandTimothySCHMIT
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2021年8期

    Pei WANG, Zhenglong LI, Jun LI*, and Timothy J.SCHMIT

    1Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    2Advanced Satellite Product Branch, Center for Satellite Applications and Research,NESDIS/NOAA, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    ABSTRACT High spectral resolution (or hyperspectral) infrared (IR) sounders onboard low earth orbiting satellites provide high vertical resolution atmospheric information for numerical weather prediction (NWP) models.In contrast, imagers on geostationary (GEO) satellites provide high temporal and spatial resolution which are important for monitoring the moisture associated with severe weather systems, such as rapidly developing local severe storms (LSS).A hyperspectral IR sounder onboard a geostationary satellite would provide four-dimensional atmospheric temperature, moisture, and wind profiles that have both high vertical resolution and high temporal/spatial resolutions.In this work, the added-value from a GEO-hyperspectral IR sounder is studied and discussed using a hybrid Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE)method.A hybrid OSSE is distinctively different from the traditional OSSE in that, (a) only future sensors are simulated from the nature run and (b) the forecasts can be evaluated using real observations.This avoids simulating the complicated observation characteristics of the current systems (but not the new proposed system) and allows the impact to be assessed against real observations.The Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS) full spectral resolution (FSR) is assumed to be onboard a GEO for the impact studies, and the GEO CrIS radiances are simulated from the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5) with the hyperspectral IR all-sky radiative transfer model (HIRTM).The simulated GEO CrIS radiances are validated and the hybrid OSSE system is verified before the impact assessment.Two LSS cases from 2018 and 2019 are selected to evaluate the value-added impacts from the GEO CrIS-FSR data.The impact studies show improved atmospheric temperature, moisture,and precipitation forecasts, along with some improvements in the wind forecasts.An added-value, consisting of an overall 5%Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) reduction, was found when a GEO CrIS-FSR is used in replacement of LEO ones indicating the potential for applications of data from a GEO hyperspectral IR sounder to improve local severe storm forecasts.

    Key words: GEO, hyperspectral IR, hybrid OSSE, satellite data assimilation

    1.Introduction

    Accurate initial conditions of the atmosphere are critical to weather forecasts in numerical weather prediction(NWP) models.Data assimilation allows us to improve the initial conditions by using a variety of atmospheric observations.In recent years, the number and types of observing systems have grown very quickly (Stith et al., 2018).In addition to traditional observations, observations from aircraft,radar, lidar, etc.are widely used in NWP (Graham et al.,2000; Carbone et al., 2002, Adam et al., 2016; Bachmann et al., 2018; Reen and Dumais, 2018).Although networked in situ observing systems such as radiosondes are essential components of NWP, remote sensing systems have begun playing a larger role, especially satellite sounder and imager data (Cardinali, 2009; Cucurull et al., 2014; Han et al.,2016; Li et al., 2016; Menzel et al., 2018).Satellite observations cover the whole globe, which directly benefits areas with sparse in situ observations, such as the Southern Hemisphere and over the oceans.The assimilation of satellite observations has greatly improved the global forecast skill of NWP (Bauer et al., 2011; Garand et al., 2013; Joo et al.,2013; Geer et al., 2018).

    Satellite-based hyperspectral infrared (IR) sounders(Menzel et al., 2018) onboard low earth orbiting (LEO) satellites, such as the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS),Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI),Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS), and the Hyperspectral Infra-Red Atmospheric Sounder (HIRAS), provide high spectral (or hyperspectral) IR radiance observations.These observations allow for a very high vertical resolution of the atmospheric state; assimilating them can reduce forecast errors in both global and regional NWP models (Pavelin et al., 2008;Hilton et al., 2009; Pangaud et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2014,2017; Zheng et al., 2015).However, each sounder only provides observations twice a day over most of the globe,and frequent observations are needed to reflect the atmospheric changes for NWP and to increase the chances of obtaining cloud-free observations.

    The spatial resolution of advanced imagers onboard GEO satellites, such as the Advanced Baseline Imager(ABI) (Schmit et al., 2005) onboard GOES-16/17, the Advanced Himawari Imager (AHI) (Bessho et al., 2016)onboard Himawari-8/9, and the Advanced Geosynchronous Radiation Imager (AGRI) onboard Fengyun-4A (Yang et al., 2017), have very high temporal (1—15 min) and high spatial (0.5 to 4 km at nadir) resolutions.The observations from these imagers can monitor rapidly changing weather systems, especially local severe storms (LSS), which have relatively short lifetimes but can cause severe damage with large hail, heavy precipitation, and strong winds.The development and movement of cloud and moisture fields within weather systems can be better understood through the use of advanced imager data (Ma et al., 2017; Kazumori, 2018;Lee et al., 2018; Schmit et al.2019; Wang et al., 2019).However, there are only a few absorption bands for NWP applications and those bands that are included are spectrally wide, containing limited vertical information.

    Hyperspectral sounders similar to those currently onboard LEO satellites are also needed in GEO orbits.Schmit et al.(2009) discussed that advanced sounding missions from GEO orbits can provide the high temporal and high spatial resolution 4-D moisture and dynamic motion information needed for the improvement of nowcasting weather predictions.The WMO 2040 Vision recommended at least six geostationary satellites with advanced imagers and hyperspectral IR sounders for weather forecasting(Balogh and Kurino, 2020).EUMETSAT plans to launch its first geostationary advanced IR sounder called the InfraRed Sounder (IRS) in the 2023 time frame.Okamoto et al.(2020) simulated a hyperspectral infrared sounder on a Himawari follow-on geostationary satellite and assessed the impacts in both regional and global NWP models, and they found added impacts from the GEO hyperspectral IR sounder on both large scale and mesoscale weather forecasts.The Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder(GIIRS) onboard the Fengyun-4A (FY-4A) geostationary satellite was launched in 2016 and became operational in 2018 (Yin et al., 2020).Li et al.(2018) studied the added value from a GEO hyperspectral infrared sounder through a quick regional Observing System Simulation Experiment(OSSE).The quick OSSEs have been used by investigators and are considered to be a well-established type of impact experiment for understanding the value-added impact of future observations (Jones et al., 2017).

    An OSSE is designed to use data assimilation to investigate the potential impact of future observing systems (Atlas,1997; Atlas et al., 2015; Hoffman and Atlas, 2016).An OSSE starts with a nature run (NR) generated by a very high temporal and spatial resolution model output, which serves as the true state of the atmosphere, and comes from a free run NWP forecast.The NR is intended to be the best representation possible of the true environmental conditions;the temporal and spatial resolutions should be sufficient so that the data may be used as experimental samples and validation data for planning future observing systems.Ideally, the NR should be of finer resolution than the instrument being proposed.In an OSSE, synthetic observations are simulated from the NR with a state-of-art forward operator and then assimilated into an NWP model.The analysis and forecast can be assessed through comparison with the NR to quantify the impact of the sensor or the assimilation technique.There are four main challenges in an OSSE: (1) the simulated observations are difficult to characterize with realistic observation errors included, (2) the high impact weather events such as local severe storms and tropical cyclones (TCs) are difficult to be simulated realistically in a NR, (3) the forecast model used to evaluate the impacts should be neither too far apart nor too close to the NR, if it is too far apart, the impact is difficult to justify, while if it is too close, the impact might be meaningless, and (4) an OSSE is very difficult to calibrate.Here, calibration means the OSSE system needs to be adjusted so that when it is applied to the real observations the impacts from the real and the simulated data, respectively, are close and comparable.

    To further understand and evaluate the impacts of hyperspectral sounders onboard GEO satellites over the continental US (CONUS), a hybrid Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE) method is used.Compared to the traditional OSSE, in a hybrid OSSE, most of the data are realobservations, but new sensors are simulated from high temporal and spatial resolution global or regional re-analysis and forward models (Okamoto et al., 2020).Different from the traditional OSSE, which uses a free run NWP forecast as the NR, the hybrid OSSE in this study uses the the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5) reanalysis to take the place of the NR in the traditional OSSE.In a hybrid OSSE, all observations are real except those from a future observation system, which are instead simulated (with realistic noise added) from high temporal and spatial resolution reanalysis using radiative transfer models.This approach allows for the evaluation of the future sensors using what we already have from real observations and simulating what we plan to have, such as a hyperspectral GEO IR sounder with high temporal resolution.A hybrid OSSE system is comprised of future system simulation and validation, hybrid OSSE verification, and impact assessment (Okamoto et al., 2020).

    There are two distinct differences of the hybrid OSSE when compared with traditional OSSE that allow future observations to be evaluated in a more realistic environment.First, only future observations are simulated from ERA5 while the existing observations are real.For the traditional OSSE, all observations are simulated from the NR, which requires a careful calibration (verification) of the system to ensure that future observations have comparable impacts on the forecast that are as realistic as possible.This calibration is extremely computational expensive since there are many types of observations to be considered.The hybrid OSSE,on the other hand, has only future observations to be evaluated and verified.The verification can be conducted by comparing the impacts from real and simulated observations from a LEO hyperspectral IR sounder (e.g., CrIS).In this study, the CrIS full spectral resolution (FSR) is assumed to be onboard the GEO for impact studies, and the GEO CrIS radiances are simulated from ERA5 with CRTM.The simulated GEO CrIS radiances are verified through a two-step process.First, the validation against Suomi-NPP CrIS measurements ensures that the GEO CrIS radiances are properly simulated in terms of radiometric accuracy.To help ensure the GEO CrIS radiances will result in having the expected impacts on the forecast, Suomi-NPP CrIS radiances are also simulated using CRTM and assimilated, the impact is then verified against that which is observed from assimilating the real Suomi-NPP radiance measurements.The impacts from GEO CrIS-FSR radiances are then evaluated on LSS forecasts in a regional NWP model.The second distinctive difference is that the hybrid OSSE allows for the evaluation of the forecast using real observations, including the ERA5 reanalysis and additional observations.Since every component of the hybrid OSSE is real except for future observations, the evaluation of the forecasts will be relatively realistic.Especially regarding the use of additional observations such as stage IV precipitation to evaluate the precipitation forecast and provide for an independent means to quantify the added value, which is realistic and meaningful.It should be noted that in a hybrid OSSE, the reanalysis taking the place of the NR should be better than the forecast model as pointed out by Okamoto et al.(2020), which is usually true for most situations if ERA5 data are used for simulation, validation, and impact verification.In the next section,we describe the simulation work.The assimilation experiments are discussed in detail in Section 3.Section 4 explains the validation of the experiments.The added-value impact studies from GEO CrIS-FSR data are presented in Section 5.The discussion and summary are given in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.

    2.Observation simulation and validation

    2.1.Synthetic observation simulation

    To simulate hyperspectral GEO IR sounders, ERA5 global dataset is used (Hersbach and Dee, 2017) to take the place of the NR for GEO IR sounder radiance simulation.The hourly outputs of the ERA5 have a 31 km horizontal resolution.It is resampled to 14 km at nadir for the GEO grid points.The channels of the simulated GEO IR are based on the CrIS-FSR resolution (GEO CrIS-FSR for short).There are a total of 2211 channels of CrIS-FSR in three bands covering longwave (LWIR, 650-1095 cm), mid-wave (MWIR 1210 -1750 cm), and shortwave (SWIR 2155-2550 cm)bands (Zhou et al., 2019).The orbit of the GEO IR follows the current operational GOES-16 at 75.2°W.The viewing geometry of the GEO satellite is included in the simulation.To avoid using the same RTM for both simulation and assimilation, the hyperspectral IR all-sky radiative transfer model(HIRTM) (Li et al., 2017) is used for simulating a GEO hyperspectral sounder, while the CRTM Version 2.1.3 (Chen et al., 2012) is used for assimilation.Since the ERA5 analysis data serve as a replacement to the NR, the GSI and WRFARW models are used for the experiments with GFS reanalysis as the initial and boundary conditions, to avoid the identical twin problem.Both the clear sky and the cloudy sky are simulated for GEO CrIS-FSR data.The GEO CrISFSR is assumed to have a nadir spatial resolution of 14 km.The navigation system (latitude, longitude, satellite zenith angle, and satellite azimuth angle of each pixel) is obtained by degrading the ABI/GOES-16, 2 km navigation data, i.e.choosing one pixel out of seven pixels in both directions to represent a field of view (FOV) of the GEO CrIS-FSR.In the radiance simulation, the hourly ERA5 field (e.g.temperature, moisture, clouds, surface data, etc.) is linearly interpolated to the GEO CrIS-FSR grids to generate the inputs for the synthetic observation simulation.The GEO CrIS-FSR is assumed to have a temporal refresh rate of one hour, so there is no need for temporal interpolation.Considering the differences between ERA5 (taking the place of the NR) and NCEP FNL (used as initial and boundary conditions for regional NWP), and the differences from the radiative transfer model between HIRTM and CTRM, no explicit errors(random and systematic) are added to the synthetic observations.This is consistent with the study by Okamoto et al.(2020), and may cause an overestimate of the impact fromthe synthetic observations.Figure 1 shows the synthetic brightness temperature (BT) observations of GEO CrISFSR for channel 96 (Fig.1, upper left) and channel 1183(Fig.1, lower left).Channel 96 (709.37 cm) of the GEO CrIS-FSR is in the COabsorption band.The effects of the satellite zenith angle on BT can be found from channel 96.Channel 1183 (1503.1 cm) of the GEO CrIS-FSR is in the water vapor absorption band.The temperature and mixing ratio from ERA5 at (43.3°N, 92.5°W) are shown in Fig.1(upper right), and the simulated BT spectra are shown in Fig.1 (lower right).

    2.2.Synthetic Observation Evaluation

    There are two main purposes for validating the synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR BT observations.First, it verifies that the ERA5 can be used to take the place of the NR to provide synthetic information, which means it can simulate the important weather systems in the CONUS domain and the thermodynamic and hydrometric information are reasonably close to the real atmosphere.Second, it ensures the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR BT observations are accurate.If the simulated BTs are reasonable, it would indicate that both ERA5 and the RTM have to be reasonable.

    For validation, the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data are compared with real CrIS-FSR data from Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) with similar satellite zenith angles.The real CrIS-FSR observations are located at 24.45°N, 78.48°W with a satellite zenith angle at 32.07°.The related simulated radiance data is located at 24.65°N,80.38°W with a satellite zenith angle at 29.44°.Since there were no major events at that time, the geolocation and angle differences between the two locations have no major impact on the comparison.Figure 2 shows the BT spectra of the simulated radiances and the observations from CrIS-FSR data.As expected, there are slight differences between the simulated CrIS-FSR and the observations except in the shortwave region, which is likely due to the limitation of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) effects in HIRTM.Where the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data and the real observations are close to each other, especially for the longwave band and the mid-wave band, it confirms that the simulated radiances are reasonably accurate, which also indicates that both the ERA5 and the RTM are reasonably accurate to generate the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data.The synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR observations will be used in the numerical experiments to evaluate the impacts of assimilating the GEO IR data with the CRTM.

    In addition, synthetic S-NPP radiances are also simulated from ERA5 using the HIRTM.The main purpose is to verify the hybrid OSSE system, i.e.the impact of synthetic S-NPP radiances should be comparable to that from the real measurements.They also offer an opportunity to evaluate the synthetic S-NPP radiances with real measurements, as an indirect way to evaluate the synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR radi-ances.Figure 3 shows the data coverage of the S-NPP CrISFSR radiances of channel 1183 from the observations(Fig.3a) and the simulations (Fig.3b).The CrIS-FSR channel 1183 (1503.1 cm) is in the water vapor absorption band.It reflects the moisture pattern of the atmospheric state.Larger BT values represent less water vapor in the upper atmosphere.From the observations, there is a dry band in the southern part of the East Coast of the United States.This dry band also can be found in the simulated CrIS-FSR data (Fig.3b), although less profound.Both the pattern and the intensity of the BT from the simulated CrISFSR are similar to those of the BT from the observations.The largest value of observed BT from channel 1183 is over 250 K, which is consistent with the simulated BT.Given the agreement between the simulation and the observations,ERA5 can be used to take the place of the NR and the synthetic observations simulated from it can be used to reasonably represent future GEO CrIS-FSR observations.However, there are two differences between the observations and the simulations.While the resolution of the simulated CrIS-FSR at 14 km at the nadir is the same as the observations, the simulated data is linearly interpolated from the ERA5 data with 31 km horizontal resolution, which means it lacks the detailed information achievable from high-resolution observations.Since in the data assimilation system,only the clear sky or clear channels of the hyperspectral IR will be used, the effects of less accurate clouds would be relatively small.

    Fig.1.The brightness temperature (BT) (units: K) of the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR channel 96 (upper left) and channel 1183 (lower left), the temperature (units: K), and mixing ratio (units: g kg-1) profiles (upper right), and the simulated clear sky BT spectra (lower right) at (43.3°N, 92.5°W) at 1800 UTC 23 May 2019.

    Fig.2.The BT spectra of (blue) simulated GEO CrIS and (red) S-NPP CrIS observations at 1800 UTC 23 June 2018.The real CrIS-FSR observations are located at 24.45°N, 78.48°W with a satellite zenith angle at 32.07°.The simulated radiances are located at 24.65°N, 80.38°W with a satellite zenith angle at 29.44°.

    3.Models and experiments

    3.1.Data assimilation system

    The data assimilation system used in this study is the Developmental Testbed Center (DTC) delivered the Community Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) system(DTC-GSI) v3.7.GSI was designed by NOAA/NASA for assimilating observations in the operational NWP models(Hu et al., 2018).DTC began to collaborate with major GSI development groups to transform the operational GSI system into a community system in 2007 (Shao et al., 2016).The GSI version was updated by the DTC based on the development of the operational GSI model.In 2017, the DTC and the Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) worked together to build a unified GSI code repository for both operational and community developers.The latest version, GSI v3.7, was used.The GSI can be run as data assimilation of 2DVar (for surface data analysis), 3DVar, 3D ensemble-variational (3DEnVar), 4DEnVar, and 3D/4D hybrid EnVar.Due to the limitation of the computer resources for the regional NWP model, the 3Dvar method is used to evaluate the GEO CrIS-FSR in this study.

    Fig.3.The data coverage of the SNPP CrIS-FSR radiances of channel 1183 from the observations (a) and the simulations (b) at 1800 UTC 23 June 2018.

    For all observations, the background and observation errors are based on the North American Mesoscale Forecast System (NAM) regional model.For satellite observations,the enhanced variational bias correction (VarBC) method is used for bias correction, which is updated every cycle from the initial satellite bias coefficient (Zhu et al., 2014).In applying the VarBC to GEO CrIS-FSR with no explicit errors,the VarBC will identify the differences, in terms of radiance space, between the climatology of ERA5 and the climatology of the forecast model, as well as between the CRTM and the HIRTM.For the GEO CrIS-FSR, the bias coefficients are initiated from the current SNPP CrIS-FSR data.With the initial BC coefficient, the simulated GEO CrISFSR data were cycling assimilated several times in the current domain to fit the bias coefficients to the GEO CrISFSR data.The updated bias coefficients for the GEO CrISFSR data are then used as the coefficients in the assimilation experiments for impact assessment.To assimilate the GEO CrIS-FSR data, the module that reads the CrIS-FSR data is modified.The satellite zenith angles of GEO and LEO data are different.To use the current CrIS-FSR assimilating module without introducing extra uncertainties, any GEO CrIS-FSR data with a zenith angle larger than 60° are discarded.With some modifications of the CrIS-FSR assimilation module, the GEO CrIS-FSR data are converted to BUFR format for the GSI to assimilate.

    The CRTM is used as the forward model to simulate the radiances based on the background from the analysis fields in the GSI system.It is a unified interface for all sensors and conditions.It includes six hydrometeor types,including water, ice, rain, snow, hail, and graupel.The CRTM also provides the Jacobians of the input variables.The details of the CRTM can be found in Chen et al.(2010,2012) and Han et al.(2006).The CRTM coefficients version 2.3.0 is used in GSI v 3.7.

    3.2.WRF-ARW forecast model

    The Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) model version 3.9.1 is used as the regional NWP model.It is a community mesoscale model developed by NCAR.It includes four main parts: the WRF model, the WRF pre-processing system (WPS), WRF Data Assimilation (WRF-DA), and WRF-Chemistry.In this work, the WRF model and WPS are used for the LSS case simulation.The WRF-ARW model is widely used at operational centers and in the research community, especially for regional NWP studies.It has a variety of physics schemes available to simulate different weather systems.

    The general settings of this experiment mainly follow the Rapid Refresh (RAP) and the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) (Benjamin et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2017) forecast models.A two-way nested domain with a horizontal resolution of 9 km for the outer domain (domain 1) and 3 km for the inner domain (domain 2) is adopted.The outer domain has 600 × 350 grid points (around 22°-50°N,65°-130°W), the inner domain has 901 × 601 grid points(around 30°-46°N, 85°-110°W).There are 51 vertical levels extending from the surface to 10 hPa.The physical schemes are consistent with the RAP/HRRR model in that the microphysics scheme is Thompson aerosol-aware, the longwave and shortwave radiation scheme is RRTMG (Iacono et al., 2008), the land surface scheme uses the Noah land surface model, and the planetary boundary layer uses the Yonesei University scheme.

    3.3.Data and experimental design

    To evaluate the added value of GEO IR data, observations assimilated in the current systems are used, including conventional data (GTS), AMSU-A onboard NOAA-15,NOAA-18, NOAA-19, Metop-A, and Metop-B, ATMS and CrIS onboard Suomi-NPP and NOAA-20, and IASI onboard Metop-A/B.In the control (CNTRL) run, all the existing observations mentioned are assimilated.In the experiment (EXP), the CrIS-FSR data from S-NPP and NOAA-20 are replaced by the synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR observations.

    CNTRL: GTS + AMSU-A + IASI + ATMS + real SNPP/NOAA20 CrIS-FSR

    EXP: GTS + AMSU-A + IASI + ATMS + simulated GEO CrIS-FSR

    VER: GTS + AMSU-A + IASI + ATMS + simulated SNPP/NOAA20 CrIS-FSR

    The thinning box of the AMSU-A, ATMS, ATMS, and CrIS-FSR is 60 km.The CNTRL represents the existing capability with the current observing system, while the EXP represents the added value from the future GEO hyperspectral IR sounder in replace of the LEO CrIS-FSR.The two experiments (CNTRL and EXP) can be viewed as the different impacts between using LEO sounders and using a GEO sounder for regional NWP.

    Two LSS cases are selected for impact assessment.The precipitation of the first LSS case (Case I) occurred in Colorado and Oklahoma from 0000 UTC 24 June to 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.While the storm was relatively short-lived,the 6-h accumulated precipitation was more than 100 mm.For this case, the assimilation time is at 1800 UTC 23 June,followed by a 24-h forecast to 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.The evaluation will focus on precipitation forecasts for Case I.Figure 4 shows the BT evolution of GOES-16 channel 9from 2200 UTC 23 June to 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.The temporal changes in BT of channel 9 reflect the development of the LSS case.

    Fig.4.The observed BT (units: K) of GOES-16 channel 9 (6.93 μm) for Case I at 2200 UTC (upper left), 0200 UTC(upper middle), 0600 UTC (upper right), 1000 UTC (lower left), 1400 UTC (lower middle), and 1800 UTC (lower right) from 23 June to 24 June 2018.

    The second LSS case (Case II) began in Oklahoma and moved northeastward to Wisconsin from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.From genesis to dissipation,this storm lasted much longer than the storm in the first case.The assimilation is conducted every six hours from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May, with each assimilation followed by a 72-h forecast (Fig.5c).There are seven forecast groups for Case II.Figure 5 shows the 6-h accumulated precipitation from 0000 to 0600 UTC, and from 0600 to 1200 UTC on 26 May 2019.This longer-lived storm allows for a more comprehensive statistical analysis.For both cases, a final normalized score and the percentile of the CNTRL and EXP will be calculated to evaluate the impacts of the added value from GEO hyperspectral IR data.

    In addition, a verification experiment (VER) is conducted where the synthetic CrIS-FSR radiances are assimilated in replace of real measurements.The purpose of VER is to ensure that assimilating the synthetic radiances has comparable impacts to those from the real observations.Any large deviations would indicate possible underestimates or overestimates of the impacts which may arise from the syntheticradiances.It is an important step to verify that the experimental results are reasonably calibrated and that the hybrid OSSE can be used to evaluate the impacts from a future satellite observing system with confidence.

    Fig.5.The 6-h accumulated precipitation of Stage IV data from (a) 0000 UTC 26 May to 0600 UTC 26 May, and (b)0600 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 26 May 2019, and (c) the flow chart of the assimilation and forecast experiment.The assimilation is conducted every 6 hours from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May, with each assimilation followed by a 72-h forecast.

    4.Verification of the hybrid OSSE system

    In this study, a validation experiment is carried out to verify the hybrid OSSE framework.The details of CNTRL are described in section 3.3.The experiment VER has the same data and settings as CNTRL but replaces the observed CrIS-FSR data with the synthetic CrIS-FSR data.The new set of CrIS-FSR data are simulated with the same processing steps as the simulation of the GEO CrIS-FSR data,but using simulated S-NPP orbits.The details about the LEO orbit simulator can be found in Li et al.(2018).Thus,the differences between CNTRL and VER are only due to the CrIS-FSR data; CNTRL uses real CrIS-FSR data while VER uses simulated CrIS-FSR data.

    4.1.Temperature validation

    ERA5 is the fifth generation reanalysis dataset released by the ECMWF with hourly high-resolution grid points.The ERA5 data are used to take the place of the NR to represent the real atmosphere.It is widely used as the benchmark for validating satellite products and models (Hooker et al.,2018; Eicker et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020).The atmospheric field of ERA5 is also used to validate the forecast results of the CNTRL and VER experiments in this study.As described in Section 3.3, the assimilation time is at 1800 UTC 23 June 2018 which is then followed by a 24-h forecast for Case I.Figure 6 shows the 850 hPa temperature fields of ERA5, CNTRL, and VER at 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.The temperature fields are based on the outer domain of the model (domain 1) with 9 km resolution, and then the data are linearly interpolated to the ERA5 grids.The missing data in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho are due to the high terrain in those regions.The standard deviation (STD) of the ERA5 — CNTRL is 1.69 K, and the root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) is 3.42 K.The differences between the ERA5 and VER (ERA5 — VER) are shown in Fig.6e.The STD of the ERA5 — VER is 1.70 K,and the RMSE of the ERA5 — VER is 3.40 K.Comparing the ERA5 — CNTRL and ERA5 — VER at the 24-h forecast,the STD and RMSE are very close to each other.

    The RMSE and the errors of 95% confidence interval of the temperature fields of ERA5 — CNTRL and ERA5 —VER at 850 hPa are calculated at the analysis time and for the 6-h forecast, 12-h forecast, 18-h forecast, and 24-h forecast (Table 1).The smaller RMSE of the two groups of experiments is shown in red.From Table 1, it is hard to conclusively determine which experiment performs better overall.Similar results also can be found for the temperature at other levels and the other atmospheric variables, such as moisture and winds (not shown).Thus, these comparisons show that the forecast results of VER are comparable to the forecast results of CNTRL.In other words, the simulated synthetic S-NPP CrIS-FSR radiances have a similar impact on the analysis and forecast of thermodynamic fields as the real observations.These results provide confidence in using this hybrid OSSE to assess the impact of a GEO hyperspectral IR sounder.

    4.2.Precipitation validation

    For LSS cases, precipitation is one of the most import-ant features for weather forecasting.The hybrid OSSE allows for the validation of the precipitation using real observations.The Stage IV dataset is the precipitation observation based on the multi-sensor hourly/6-hourly Stage III analysis produced by 12 River Forecast Centers (RFC) for the CONUS domain.The Stage IV data are provided as 1-h, 6-h,and 24-h accumulated precipitation at a resolution of 4 km.The data also has covered Alaska and Puerto Rico stations since 2017 (Seo et al., 2002).The Stage IV dataset has been used to depict the precipitation observations in research studies (Lopez and Bauer, 2007; Kalinga and Gan, 2010; Wang et al., 2020).The 24-h accumulated precipitation results from both the CNTRL and VER are compared with the Stage IV dataset.The rainfall belt of 24-h accumulated precipitation for Case I, an LSS case with strong precipitation, is oriented from the northwest toward the southeast in the domain area.

    Fig.6.The temperature fields (units: K) from (a) ERA5 reanalysis dataset, (b) CNTRL 24-h forecast and (c) VER 24-h forecast, and the temperature differences between ERA5 and (d) CNTRL (ERA5—CNTRL) and (e) VER(ERA5—VER) at 850 hPa at 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.

    Table 1.The RMSE and the error at the 95% confidence level for the temperature fields (unit: K) of ERA5—CNTRL and ERA5—Ver at 850 hPa with different forecast hours.The red numbers show the smaller RMSE between the two groups of experiments.

    To evaluate the precipitation forecasts, the equitable threat scores (ETS), probability of detection (POD), and false alarm ratio (FAR) are calculated for the 6-h, 12-h, 18-h,and 24-h accumulated precipitation in the domain from 32.0°N to 42.5°N, and from 90.0°W to 107.0°W.The ETS,POD, and FAR scores reflect the precipitation location and intensity forecasts compared to the Stage IV observations.ETS values range from -1/3 to 1, with higher ETS scores reflecting better precipitation forecasts (or closer to the observations).POD and FAR scores both range from 0 to 1, with higher POD scores reflecting better precipitation detection,and smaller FAR scores indicating fewer false alarms.The ETS, POD, and FAR scores for CNTRL and VER over 0.1 mm accumulated precipitation are compared to each other.Table 2 lists the scores for CNTRL and VER for 6-h, 12-h,18-h, and 24-h accumulated precipitation.The ETS scores for CNTRL and VER are comparable to each other.The POD for VER is slightly better (or larger) than that for CNTRL.The FAR for VER is slightly worse (or larger)than that for CNTRL.However, the differences between CNTRL and VER at 6-h, 12-h, 18-h, and 24-h forecasts are relatively small.The mean differences are 0.83% for ETS,1.4% for POD, and 0.78% for FAR.The errors of the 95%confidence interval for ETS, POD, and FAR are listed in Table 2.The errors are very similar between CNTRL and VER.These small differences indicate that the precipitation forecasts of the two experiments are comparable to each other.

    Based on the validation of the atmospheric fields using ERA5 and the precipitation using the Stage IV observations,the CNTRL and VER are similar or comparable to each other in the atmospheric fields and the accumulated precipitation forecast.It is therefore reasonable to believe that the simulated LEO CrIS-FSR can provide impacts similar to the real CrIS-FSR in the NWP model for LSS forecasts.Since simulating the GEO CrIS-FSR follows the same steps as the simulated LEO CrIS-FSR, the assimilation of the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR should be able to reflect the expected added value for LSS forecasts.

    5.Added-value impact study

    5.1.Data impacts on analysis fields

    The data assimilation method uses information from the observations to improve the analysis fields which go on to further improve forecast results.The analysis fields directly reflect the data impact after assimilation, so analyzing the changes in the analysis fields is an important step to study the GEO CrIS-FSR data impact.Figure 7 provides the data coverage of CrIS-FSR channel 97 from both S-NPP and NOAA20 after assimilation in the GSI system at 0600 UTC on 27 May 2019.The thinning box of the real CrISFSR (Fig.7a) is 60 km following the operational settings.While the simulated GEO data can cover the whole model domain, only satellite zenith angles less than 60° are used in the GSI system.As an example, in Fig.7b, when the satellite zenith angle is greater than 60°, there are gaps where the data have been removed, which occurs mainly in the northwestern part of the CONUS.The missing data in the Fig.7 also includes observations affected by clouds as the clear detection method inside the GSI system is used to remove cloud contamination.Due to the differences in the satellitezenith angle, the BTs of the real CrIS-FSR and the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR are different.More data are available from the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR than from the real CrISFSR, especially in Texas and the southwestern coastal area.

    Table 2.The ETS, POD, and FAR scores of CNTRL and VER for the 6-h, 12-h, 18-h, and 24-h accumulated precipitation over 0.1 mm.The 6-h represents the precipitation from 1800 UTC 23 June to 0000 UTC 24 June; the 12-h represents the precipitation from 1800 UTC 23 June to 0600 UTC 24 June; the 18-h represents the precipitation from 1800 UTC 23 June to 1200 UTC 24 June; and the 24-h represents the precipitation from 1800 UTC 23 June to 1800 UTC 24 June 2018.The error at the 95% confidence levels are italicized in the brackets.

    Fig.7.The assimilated CrIS-FSR channel 97 BT (K) for (a) CNTRL from SNPP and NOAA-20 and (b) EXP from GEO for Case II at 0600 UTC 27 May 2019.The thinning box is 60 km for both experiments.

    In this study, ERA5 is used to take the place of the NR,which is assumed to be the “true” atmosphere.The analysis fields are compared with the ERA5 atmospheric state.Figure 8 shows the moisture differences between the ERA5 and CNTRL (ERA5 — CNTRL) as well as ERA5 and EXP(ERA5 — EXP) at 850 hPa for both model domains.The analysis fields directly reflect the atmospheric state after assimilating the data.In general, the main patterns of the moisture differences are similar for the two experiments.CNTRL appears to have slightly larger differences compared with ERA5, especially in Texas.This can be seen more easily from the statistics.For domain 1, the RMSE of the ERA5 —CNTRL is 2.86 g kg, and the STD is 2.24 g kg.For ERA5 — EXP, the RMSE is 2.26 g kg, and the STD is 2.00 g kg.For domain 2, the RMSE of ERA5 — CNTRL is 2.75 g kg, and the STD is 2.10 g kg; while the RMSE of ERA5 — EXP is 2.58 g kg, and the STD is 2.11 g kg.These results show that the EXP moisture field is closer to ERA5 than the moisture field from the CNTRL for both model domain 1 and domain 2 at the analysis time.Similar results also can be found for other atmospheric state variables, such as temperature and winds.

    5.2.Data impacts on forecast fields

    The assimilation affects not only the analysis fields but also the forecasts.The ERA5 reanalysis dataset is also used to evaluate the forecast results from the CNTRL and EXP.For each experiment in Case II, the RMSE and STD of the averaged 00-h, 06-h, 12-h, 18-h, and 24-h forecast time at the standard atmospheric levels are calculated.The STD of the temperature and moisture at 850 hPa and the STD of the U/V wind at 500 hPa for all seven groups of the experiment from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019 are shown in Fig.9.At 850 hPa, the temperature STD of ERA5 —EXP is slightly smaller than that of ERA5 — CNTRL for the first six groups of the experiment.The moisture fields at 850 hPa and U/V winds at 500 hPa from EXP are always closer to the ERA5 reanalysis fields than those from CNTRL.To further evaluate the impacts from the GEO hyperspectral IR data, T/Q/U/V at the four standard atmospheric levels, i.e., 850 hPa, 700 hPa, 500 hPa, and 200 hPa are compared with ERA5 for all seven groups of experiments for Case II.The RMSE and the STD of the ERA5 — CNTRL and ERA5 — EXP are listed in Table 3.Smaller RMSEs or STDs are shown in red.As seen from the table, all RMSEs and STDs of EXP are smaller than those of CNTRL, which indicates that the temperature, moisture, and U/V wind forecast fields from EXP are closer to ERA5 than those from CNTRL for all cycling runs.Thus, assimilating GEO CrISFSR data provides positive impacts on the analysis fields,which will likely lead to improved forecast fields by reducing the forecast error attributed to the atmospheric state variables.

    5.3.Data impacts on precipitation

    Similar results were found for the forecasts of theT/Q/U/V where EXP is closer to ERA5 (not shown).For LLS, the evaluation of the precipitation forecast is important because of its relationship to potential loss.The 24-h accumulated precipitation from CNTRL and EXP are compared with the Stage IV observations for all experiments.Figure 10 shows one example of the 6-h accumulated precipitation from the experiment time starting at 0600 UTC 27 May 2019.From the Stage IV observations (Fig.10a), the LSS precipitation covered Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.The main patterns of precipitation from CNTRL and EXP are similar.The forecast precipitation over Kansas is less than the Stage IV precipitation,which is due to the model initial conditions (FNL data).However, a spurious storm forms in CNTRL over northeastern Texas (in the red circle).The artificial storm produces heavy precipitation and propagates further northeastward in the following forecast.The assimilation of GEO CrIS-FSR data was able to remove the spurious storm.Similarly, the development of the spurious storm in CNTRL is also removed in EXP in the following forecast.

    Fig.8.The moisture differences (units: g kg-1) between ERA5 and CNTRL (ERA5 — CNTRL) for (a) model domain 1 and (c) model domain 2, and between ERA5 and EXP (ERA5 — EXP) for (b) model domain 1 and (d) model domain 2 at 850 hPa at 0600 UTC 27 May 2019.

    Fig.9.The STD of (a) temperature and (b) moisture at 850 hPa and (c) U-wind and (d) V-wind at 500 hPa for the seven groups of forecasts from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.Note that the STD from EXP is significantly smaller than those from CNTRL at all forecast times except 1200 UTC 27 May 2019 for temperatures at 850 hPa.

    The ETS, POD, and FAR of each experiment are calculated (Fig.11) applying a threshold of over 0.1 mm.The scores reflect the accuracy of the precipitation location and intensity forecasts.The scores are calculated using the forecasts based on domain 2 inside a box from 34°N to 45°N and from 84°W to 104°W.The accumulated precipitation starts at 0000 UTC 26 May and continues to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.ETS scores from EXP are higher than those from CNTRL for all seven groups of experiments, especially for the forecast starting at 0600 UTC 27 May, where the largest improvement of the ETS is seen.The POD scores for the experiments are shown in Fig.11b.Overall,the EXP POD scores are better than those of CNTRL, but they are quite close to each other, except for the forecast starting at 0600 UTC 26 May.FAR scores measure the fraction of rain detections that were false alarms.The FAR of CNTRL and EXP (Fig.11c) shows that for most of the experiments, the FAR of EXP is substantially smaller than that of CNTRL.These results indicate that the assimilation of the GEO CrIS-FSR data improves the 24-h accumulated precipitation forecast by increasing the EST and POD scores and by reducing the FAR scores for this case study.

    5.4.Final scores

    To further assess the impact of the GEO CrIS-FSR dataon LSS forecasts, an overall evaluation strategy is carried out for CNTRL and EXP.A final score is calculated based on the evaluation of the atmospheric state at the four standard atmospheric levels in the troposphere (850 hPa, 700 hPa, 500 hPa, and 200 hPa), and the three precipitation scores, ETS, POD, and FAR.The purpose is to use this one final score to characterize the overall impact on the forecast results.

    Table 3.The RMSEs and errors at the 95% confidence level for temperature (T), moisture (Q), and winds (U/V) between ERA5 and CNTRL, and between ERA5 and EXP for seven groups of forecasts from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.

    For atmospheric state variables (T/Q/U/V), the averaged RMSEs of ERA5 — CNTRL and ERA5 — EXP are calculated for each variable for the whole model domain at the four standard levels for all seven groups of experiments listed in Table 3.Since higher ETS and POD scores are better,the ETS and POD scores are calculated for the average of(1 — ETS) and (1 — POD) to be consistent with the RMSEs of the other variables.The ETS, POD, and FAR are calculated using the threshold of 0.1 mm precipitation.

    Table 4 lists the RMSEs from temperature, moisture,U-wind, V-wind, and ETS, POD, and FAR precipitation scores.The smaller of the RMSEs between CNTRL and EXP are listed in red.The percentage change is reported in the last column.The improvement in EXP can be found in most of the variables, especially for the temperature and moisture fields.The improvement in temperature fields is around 2%, and the improvement in moisture fields is around 16%.The improvement in U/V winds is around 3%.Thus, the assimilation of GEO CrIS-FSR has large impacts on the atmospheric thermodynamic information of the forecast fields.For precipitation, there is slight improvement using FAR scores, yet there is a slight decline of POD scores, which is consistent with Fig.11.The ETS scores show around 1.5%improvement with the assimilation of the GEO CrIS-FSR data.By assimilating these data, the error between the forecast fields and the ERA5 is reduced, which further reduces the precipitation forecast error.The improvement in precipitation is less than the improvement in the thermodynamic fields.This is to be expected since the precipitation is a non-linear process and is also related to the physical schemes (i.e.microphysics schemes, etc.).

    To get an overall score that may represent the overall performance of the forecast, a normalization process is needed to ensure each parameter has a controlled weight in the final score with a confidence interval of 95%.After the normalization of each variable is calculated, the final score, or thefinal normalized RMSE, is calculated by averaging each normalized variable with different weights (Li et al., 2018,2020).The thermodynamic parameters are each weighted at 10%, including T/Q/U/V.The precipitation scores are each weighted at 20% to emphasize the importance of the precipitation forecast, including ETS/POD/FAR.For Case II,the final normalized RMSE of CNTRL is 0.7258, and the final normalized RMSE of EXP is 0.6872 (Fig.12a).The final normalized RMSE is significantly reduced by 5.3%.The same method is applied to LSS Case I (Fig.12b); the scores of Case I are based on one forecast result.The final normalized RMSE of CNTRL is 0.7148, and that of EXP is 0.6818, so the final normalized RMSE is significantly reduced by 4.6%.Based on the results of Case I and Case II,the normalized RMSE is significantly reduced by approximately 5% with the assimilation of GEO hyperspectral IR sounder radiances.The reduction is largely attributed to the improvement in the thermodynamic atmospheric fields.

    Fig.10.The 6-h accumulated precipitation of (a) Stage IV, (b)CNTRL, and (c) EXP from 0600 UTC May 27 to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.The results are based on the 24-h forecast starting at 0600 UTC 27 May 2019.The red circle shows a spurious storm from CNTRL that formed over Texas.

    Although the synthetic radiances are evaluated usingreal CrIS radiances in section 2.2, the hybrid OSSE is not fully calibrated in this study.To partially solve that problem, the final normalized RMSE from VER is also calculated for LSS Case I and compared with that from EXP.It is found that the normalized RMSE is reduced by 3.0% from VER to EXP.Although this number is slightly smaller than the reduction of 4.6%, it confirms that GEO CrIS data can more significantly reduce the overall forecast error compared to the LEO CrIS data.The less profound reduction is likely due to the lack of some elements in the synthetic radiance simulation, such as spectral and spatial correlation errors, the polarization bias (Taylor et al., 2018), the earthrotation doppler shift impact (Chen et al., 2013), and explicit errors.

    Fig.11.(a) The ETS, (b) POD, and (c) FAR scores with a threshold of 0.1 mm for CNTRL (green lines) and EXP (red lines) from 0000 UTC 26 May to 1200 UTC 27 May 2019.Note that ETS, POD, and FAR from EXP are significantly better than those from CNTRL at all forecast times except ETS at 1200 UTC on 27, POD at 1200 UTC on 26, and 0000 UTC on 27 May 2019.

    Table 4.The averaged RMSE of ERA5—CNTRL and ERA5—EXP for T/Q/U/V and ETS/POD/FAR scores for all the experiments of Case II.The percentage change between the EXP from CNTRL is listed in the last column.The 95% confidence levels are italicized in the brackets.

    Fig.12.The final normalized RMSE of CNTRL and EXP with the 95% confidence intervals for LSS Case I(a) and LSS Case II (b).

    6.Discussion

    Based on the hybrid OSSE study, the assimilation of data from the GEO hyperspectral IR sounder has large impacts on the atmospheric thermodynamic information of the forecast fields.By considering the dynamic, thermodynamic, stability, and precipitation parameters collectively,the forecast error is reduced by approximately 5% as a consequence of the added value of assimilating GEO hyperspectral IR data for LSS forecasts.

    These results are consistent with previous quick regional OSSE studies on GEO hyperspectral IR sounders.In Li et al.(2018), they assimilated synthetic temperature and moisture sounding retrievals from a GEO hyperspectral IR sounder, and generated a forecast error reduction of 3.56%, on top of the IR radiances from AIRS, IASI, and CrIS.While the numbers in forecast error reduction are different, due to the use of different cases, observation types (radiances versus sounding retrievals), and a different OSSE framework (hybrid versus traditional), both studies show that the GEO hyperspectral IR sounders have added-value when compared with LEO ones..

    However, there are still some limitations that may underestimate or overestimate the impact of GEO hyperspectral IR sounder data on forecasts.First, the spatial resolution of the simulated GEO hyperspectral IR data is coarser than that of real data.Although the ERA5 reanalysis dataset is of high enough quality to take the place of the NR, its resolution is 31 km.Despite interpolation, the simulated radiances have an actual resolution of 31 km instead of the intended 14 km or better, or possibly as fine as 4 km for the future GEO hyperspectral IR sounder.Consequently,detailed information within the 31 km grid points is missed,which can be found in Fig.3.It may have less impact on the global model assimilation since the thinning box for the global model is usually 145 km for LEO satellites.It would degrade the forecast results for regional models with a 9 kmand 3 km model nested domain and 60 km assimilation thinning box of satellite data.

    Second, the detailed information from sub-hourly data is missing.The simulated GEO hyperspectral IR data from the ERA5 are hourly, so atmospheric changes on timescales less than an hour are missing due to the NR temporal resolution.Severe weather systems usually have large amounts of precipitation, large gradients in temperature and moisture fields, and strong wind shear.Those atmospheric conditions change very fast in LSS cases.Therefore, the sub-hourly data from GEO satellites are of special value for nowcasting and short-term NWP users, which are not accounted for in this study.

    Third, the 3DVar data assimilation method is not able to fully explore the value of the GEO hyperspectral IR data.One of the advantages of GEO hyperspectral IR compared to LEO hyperspectral IR is the high temporal resolution.The temporal resolution of ABI data onboard GOES-16 and AHI data onboard Himawari-8 are 1—15 minutes.Compared to the 3DVar data assimilation method, the 4D-Var method can use the tangent linear and adjoint models to produce the propagation of the analysis increment over the assimilation window (Errico et al., 1993a, b; Errico, 1997).The high temporal GEO hyperspectral IR data can be better used in 4D-Var by the adjoint models to improve the analysis increment.However, that is beyond the scope of this study due to the limited computing resources.

    In addition, a subset of the spectral bands was used, for a total of 431 channels from the CrIS-FSR.While the 431 channel subset is considered representative of the original 2211 channels, some channels are given lower weights,such as the window and water vapor channels, and some channels are not used at all, such as the shortwave band.These channels remain challenging in NWP radiance assimilation.Besides the added value of the GEO hyperspectral IR radiances, a major advantage of a GEO hyperspectral instrument would be the capability of deriving three dimensional(3D) atmospheric motion vectors (AMVs) from the retrieved water vapor channels, which has proven to be useful among the existing GEO imagers (Stettner et al., 2019;Li et al., 2020).

    The hybrid OSSE, just like any other OSSE studies,may overestimate the impact due to the nature of the simulation study.For example, the synthetic GEO CrIS FSR radiances have no errors due to spectral and spatial correlations,the polarization bias (Taylor et al., 2018), the earth-rotation doppler shift impact (Chen et al., 2013), and explicit errors.While the impacts from some of these could be reduced with the VarBC technique, the lack of them in the synthetic radiances may result in an overestimation of the impact upon the forecast.Also, as pointed out before, using the ERA5 reanalysis in the place of the NR, although arguably one of the best NWP model output products, may not fully represent the real atmosphere.Any information that is not simulated or not well simulated by ERA5, such as the lack of fine-scale information, the use of parameterization of microphysics, the larger uncertainties of the surface and the boundary layer, and the wetter bias in the upper troposphere (Xue et al., 2020a, b), may cause difficulty for the hybrid OSSE to precisely quantify the impact.

    With the above limitations in mind, the hybrid OSSE provides a method to evaluate future observing systems in the current data assimilation system.The hybrid OSSE is complementary to traditional OSSEs with several distinctive differences, including not needing to simulate existing observations and having the capability for validation using real measurements.These differences allow institutions with limited computing resources to carry out OSSE studies with real observations.

    7.Summary

    A hyperspectral IR sounder onboard a geostationary orbit satellite can provide a four-dimensional atmospheric state with high vertical, spatial, and temporal resolutions.In this study, the added-value from a GEO hyperspectral IR sounder is assessed using a hybrid OSSE method.Compared to traditional OSSEs, a hybrid OSSE can take advantage of existing observations.In this hybrid OSSE framework, the ERA5 reanalysis dataset is used to take the place of the NR, the CrIS-FSR data are assumed onboard GOES-16, and HIRTM is used as the forward model to simulate the synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR data from the ERA5 while CRTM is used for assimilation.The simulated GEO CrISFSR data are validated with real CrIS-FSR data.There are slight differences between the simulated CrIS-FSR and the observations due to the different geographic and geometric information.Since the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data are very close to the real observations, it verifies that the simulated radiances are accurate, which also indicates that both the ERA5 and the RTM are credible sources for generating the synthetic GEO CrIS-FSR data.

    Before assessing the impact of the synthetic GEO CrISFSR data, the hybrid OSSE system is verified to ensure synthetic observations have similar impacts as real measurements.In the VER, a new set of CrIS-FSR data in the same LEO orbits as the CrIS-FSR are simulated.The VER experiment has the same data and settings as CNTRL but the observed CrIS-FSR data are replaced with the synthetic LEO CrIS-FSR data.Other measurements assimilated include conventional data (GTS), AMSU-A onboard NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19, Metop-A and Metop-B,ATMS onboard Suomi-NPP and NOAA-20, and IASI onboard Metop-A/B.The CNTRL and VER are compared with the ERA5 atmospheric state.Results show that the forecast results of VER are comparable to those of CNTRL for both the atmospheric state fields (T/Q/U/V) and the 24-h accumulated precipitation.With the agreement among the CNTRL and VER, it is reasonable to believe that the simulated LEO CrIS-FSR can provide a similar impact as the real CrIS-FSR measurements for LSS forecasts from the NWP model.The hybrid OSSE system can be used to evalu-ate the simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data.

    Two LSS cases from 2018 and 2019 are selected for case demonstrations of the value-added impacts from the GEO CrIS-FSR data.The impact of assimilating simulated GEO CrIS-FSR data at both the analysis time and the forecast times is studied.Atmospheric thermodynamic information (T/Q/U/V) is improved from the assimilation of the GEO hyperspectral IR data over the LEO CrIS-FSR measurements.The percentage-based precipitation improvement is smaller in comparison with the improvements of the thermodynamic field due to the complexity of the LSS precipitation processes and the physical schemes.To further evaluate the overall impacts of the synthetic GEO hyperspectral IR data, a final normalized RMSE is calculated for both CNTRL and EXP by combining the atmospheric thermodynamic variables and precipitation scores with different weights.The final normalized RMSE of CNTRL is 0.7148 for Case I and 0.7258 for Case II.The final normalized RMSE of EXP is 0.6818 for Case I and 0.6872 for Case II.An overall 5% significant reduction in RMSE was found from using the GEO hyperspectral IR sounder radiances for both cases.

    It should be noted that these positive impacts should be interpreted with the understanding of some limitations of the hybrid OSSE study.Some limitations may underestimate the value-added impact, such as the coarse resolution of the ERA5 in the place of the NR, the use of 3DVar instead of 4DVar data assimilation system, and the use of a subset of the spectral bands assimilated.Furthermore, some limitations may lead to an overestimate of the value-added impacts, such as the lack of spectral/spatial correlations, the polarization bias, the earth-rotation doppler shift impact,and the explicit errors in the synthetic radiances.It is believed that by resolving the limitations, the GEO sounders may more realistically characterize the forecast error in NWP models.In addition to applications in NWP, GEO hyperspectral IR data provide valuable information in the pre-convection environment for nowcasting and situation awareness (Li et al., 2011, 2012) and in other application areas, such as monitoring clouds, dust, atmospheric composition, aviation hazards, surface emissivity, and temperatures.

    Acknowledgements.

    This work is supported by the NOAA GeoXO program (NA15NES4320001).The view, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s or U.S.government’s position, policy, or decision.Thanks to the JCSDA (Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation) for providing the “S4” supercomputer (Supercomputer for Satellite Simulations and Data Assimilation) physically located at SSEC at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as the main computational resource for this research study.

    Open Access

    This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

    欧美在线一区亚洲| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 美国免费a级毛片| 日本熟妇午夜| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| www日本在线高清视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 免费观看精品视频网站| 日日夜夜操网爽| 精品高清国产在线一区| 搞女人的毛片| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆 | 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 精品电影一区二区在线| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 久久精品影院6| 成在线人永久免费视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| av视频在线观看入口| 国产成人影院久久av| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播 | 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线 | 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 久久这里只有精品19| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 国产精品野战在线观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 中文字幕av电影在线播放| av电影中文网址| 手机成人av网站| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 一区福利在线观看| 国产av不卡久久| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产片内射在线| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 亚洲成人久久性| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 女警被强在线播放| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产 | 一a级毛片在线观看| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 69av精品久久久久久| 三级毛片av免费| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区 | 亚洲,欧美精品.| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 国产色视频综合| 国产单亲对白刺激| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 在线视频色国产色| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 精品久久久久久久末码| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 日本三级黄在线观看| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲 国产 在线| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 久久久久久大精品| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 在线观看66精品国产| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 久久久久久大精品| www.www免费av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| xxx96com| 搞女人的毛片| 午夜视频精品福利| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲无线在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 久久热在线av| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 色在线成人网| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久, | 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 久久 成人 亚洲| 18禁观看日本| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲第一电影网av| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 午夜久久久在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 在线视频色国产色| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 精品高清国产在线一区| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 变态另类丝袜制服| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 在线观看66精品国产| www.999成人在线观看| 国产成人av教育| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 在线观看www视频免费| 亚洲中文av在线| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 1024香蕉在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 露出奶头的视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 嫩草影院精品99| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 国产黄片美女视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 高清在线国产一区| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| www.999成人在线观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 在线天堂中文资源库| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 久久热在线av| 国产av在哪里看| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 精品国产国语对白av| 一区福利在线观看| 很黄的视频免费| 欧美日韩精品网址| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久精品人妻少妇| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 宅男免费午夜| 午夜老司机福利片| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 一级片免费观看大全| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 91国产中文字幕| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 久久精品人妻少妇| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 色综合婷婷激情| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产色视频综合| 欧美大码av| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久, | 日韩国内少妇激情av| 丁香欧美五月| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 精品久久久久久,| 亚洲av熟女| 成年免费大片在线观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 久久久久九九精品影院| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 91老司机精品| 在线观看www视频免费| 香蕉av资源在线| 男女视频在线观看网站免费 | 精品久久久久久成人av| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 国产av不卡久久| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 亚洲国产看品久久| 国产精品 国内视频| 精品日产1卡2卡| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 欧美日韩精品网址| 在线观看一区二区三区| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 午夜久久久在线观看| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产av不卡久久| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 热re99久久国产66热| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 性欧美人与动物交配| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| av欧美777| 亚洲av熟女| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久 | 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 精品久久久久久,| 男女视频在线观看网站免费 | 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 久久精品91蜜桃| or卡值多少钱| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 黄色成人免费大全| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 国产精品,欧美在线| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 久久精品人妻少妇| av视频在线观看入口| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 国产av在哪里看| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 亚洲第一电影网av| 老司机靠b影院| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| av电影中文网址| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| а√天堂www在线а√下载| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 日韩国内少妇激情av| av在线播放免费不卡| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 999久久久国产精品视频| 极品教师在线免费播放| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| bbb黄色大片| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 香蕉丝袜av| 日本免费a在线| 久久久国产成人免费| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 精品国产亚洲在线| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产av又大| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 久久草成人影院| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 男女那种视频在线观看| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 91成人精品电影| 精品久久久久久久末码| 中文字幕久久专区| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 不卡av一区二区三区| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 国产野战对白在线观看| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 香蕉国产在线看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区 | 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 黄片播放在线免费| 亚洲中文av在线| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 一本久久中文字幕| 999精品在线视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 成人手机av| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2 | 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久 | 亚洲avbb在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 91大片在线观看| 亚洲激情在线av| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 岛国在线观看网站| 日本 欧美在线| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 自线自在国产av| 日韩有码中文字幕| 国产精品免费视频内射| 久久中文看片网| 国产精品九九99| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 精品国产国语对白av| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 嫩草影视91久久| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 黄色 视频免费看| 日本 欧美在线| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 亚洲九九香蕉| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频 | 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 69av精品久久久久久| 香蕉久久夜色| videosex国产| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 1024香蕉在线观看| 国产视频内射| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 两性夫妻黄色片| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| or卡值多少钱| 亚洲色图av天堂| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 国产精品影院久久| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 午夜免费鲁丝| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| tocl精华| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 午夜久久久在线观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 黄色女人牲交| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 很黄的视频免费| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| a级毛片a级免费在线| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 午夜视频精品福利| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 十八禁网站免费在线| 无限看片的www在线观看| 久久亚洲真实| 999精品在线视频| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 亚洲,欧美精品.| av电影中文网址| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 97碰自拍视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 久久香蕉激情| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 91九色精品人成在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| 精品电影一区二区在线| svipshipincom国产片| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 久9热在线精品视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 99久久国产精品久久久| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线 | 国产精品二区激情视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产色视频综合| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 色综合站精品国产| 日本成人三级电影网站| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 岛国在线观看网站| 热99re8久久精品国产| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| av电影中文网址| 久久性视频一级片| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 97碰自拍视频| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 不卡一级毛片| 色av中文字幕| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 亚洲最大成人中文| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 最好的美女福利视频网| 午夜久久久在线观看| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 自线自在国产av| 久久这里只有精品19| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | av视频在线观看入口| 一级黄色大片毛片|