• <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 ?

    Variational Quality Control of Non-Gaussian Innovations in the GRAPES m3DVAR System:Mass Field Evaluation of Assimilation Experiments

    2021-07-26 14:38:32JieHEXulinMAXuyangGEJuanjuanLIUWeiCHENGManYauCHANandZiniuXIAO
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2021年9期

    Jie HE ,Xulin MA* ,Xuyang GE ,Juanjuan LIU ,Wei CHENG ,Man-Yau CHAN ,and Ziniu XIAO

    1Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters,Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster,Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology,Nanjing 210044,China

    2State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics,Institute of Atmospheric Physics,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100029,China

    3Beijing Institute of Applied Meteorology,Beijing 100029,China

    4Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science,and Center for Advanced Data Assimilation and Predictability Techniques,The Pennsylvania State University,University Park,PA 16801,USA

    ABSTRACT The existence of outliers can seriously influence the analysis of variational data assimilation.Quality control allows us to effectively eliminate or absorb these outliers to produce better analysis fields.In particular,variational quality control(VarQC) can process gray zone outliers and is thus broadly used in variational data assimilation systems.In this study,governing equations are derived for two VarQC algorithms that utilize different contaminated Gaussian distributions(CGDs):Gaussian plus flat distribution and Huber norm distribution.As such,these VarQC algorithms can handle outliers that have non-Gaussian innovations.Then,these VarQC algorithms are implemented in the Global/Regional Assimilation and PrEdiction System (GRAPES) model-level three-dimensional variational data assimilation (m3DVAR) system.Tests using artificial observations indicate that the VarQC method using the Huber distribution has stronger robustness for including outliers to improve posterior analysis than the VarQC method using the Gaussian plus flat distribution.Furthermore,real observation experiments show that the distribution of observation analysis weights conform well with theory,indicating that the application of VarQC is effective in the GRAPES m3DVAR system.Subsequent case study and longperiod data assimilation experiments show that the spatial distribution and amplitude of the observation analysis weights are related to the analysis increments of the mass field (geopotential height and temperature).Compared to the control experiment,VarQC experiments have noticeably better posterior mass fields.Finally,the VarQC method using the Huber distribution is superior to the VarQC method using the Gaussian plus flat distribution,especially at the middle and lower levels.

    Key words:variational quality control,non-Gaussian distribution,innovation,outlier,data assimilation

    1.Introduction

    Quality control (QC) of meteorological data plays a crucial role in the data assimilation (DA) of the numerical weather forecast (NWP) system.The term "quality control"refers to the process of comparing observational data against a specified reference (e.g.,the climatological mean,surrounding observation,model state) and then subjectively deciding whether to reject or correct erroneous data (

    Kal-

    nay,2003

    ).The quality of the observations directly affects the errors in the initial conditions,and hence the accuracy of numerical weather prediction.Therefore,for more accurate and effective use of observations,meteorologists have developed many quality control methods to screen and correct the observations (

    Fiebrich et al.,2010

    ).Quality control methods essentially aim to reduce various initial condition errors in NWP.Observation errors and background errors play a key role in the establishment of variational data assimilation (VarDA).Most popular DA methods [e.g.,3DVAR (

    Courtier et al.,1998

    ),4DVAR (

    Rabier et al.,2000

    ;

    Rawlins et al.,2007

    ),and ensemble Kalman filters (

    Houtekamer and Mitchell,1998

    )] are based on the assumption that the random errors in observation and background follow Gaussian distributions and that the random observation errors are independent of the background random errors.Observation errors also include systematic and rough errors (

    Gandin,1988

    ).Observations with systematic errors are usually corrected by bias correction prior to their assimilation (

    Dee and Uppala,2009

    ).The latter,also called gross errors,are non-meteorological errors caused by measurement equipment failure,calculation errors,and transmission or reception errors.Observations with gross errors are often treated as outliers.These outlying observations are generally removed in DA systems using conventional quality control (CQC) methods,such as the background quality check(BgQC:

    J?rvinen and Undén,1997

    ;

    Cardinali et al.,2003

    ).These CQC methods typically assume that random errors follow Gaussian distributions.However,not all outliers are observations with gross errors (

    Hampel,2001

    ).Observations without gross errors can sometimes be classified as an outlier simply because their random error distributions do not follow a Gaussian distribution (

    Tavolato and Isaksen,2015

    ).For example,consider the situation where a forecasted thunderstorm is substantially displaced from the observed thunderstorm and that a wind observation was made in the gust front of the observed thunderstorm.Since the observation site is far from the forecasted thunderstorm,the related innovation (observation minus background) would be extreme.In this situation,CQC methods are likely to reject the wind observation.Therefore,rejecting such observations as an outlier may be suboptimal.In view of the potential impact of outliers on numerical forecasting,their quality control is critical (

    Storto,2016

    ;

    Duan et al.,2017

    ).There have been many studies on CQC,such as range checking,extreme value checking,consistency checking,complex quality control,static analysis,and statistical checking(

    Gandin,1988

    ;

    Collins and Gandin,1990

    ;

    Gandin et al.,1993

    ;

    Vickers and Mahrt,1997

    ;

    Fiebrich et al.,2010

    ).Although these CQC methods have been implemented widely,there are several issues with CQC methods.First of all,the CQC methods process the observations before the DA and after the bias correction process.This means that CQC accepted (removed) observations will not be removed(assimilated) even if they are identified as deleterious(valid) observations during the iterative analysis procedures.The second issue with current CQC methods is that there is some ambiguity in selecting rejection thresholds.For example,the background quality check,which assumes the observation and background errors to be Gaussian distributions,rejects outliers if the magnitude of their innovations exceeds a rejection threshold.This rejection threshold is empirically determined.An overly small threshold likely eliminates valid observations,whereas an excessively high threshold likely includes problematic observations.The third issue with current CQC methods is that an accurate observation might be rejected by CQC,even though its large innovation is simply due to non-Gaussian errors(

    Lorenc,1984

    ;

    Purser,1984

    ).For instance,outliers without gross errors are often observed in meso-and micro-scale weather events,such as severe storms and tropical cyclones,but CQC sometimes identifies them as outliers with gross errors and removes them.This erroneous rejection wastes observations and leads to suboptimal initial conditions.A final issue with CQC is that thresholds differ for different observation types.These recognized inadequacies have catalyzed the development of variational quality control (VarQC:

    Anderson and J?rvinen,1999

    ;

    Storto,2016

    ;

    Duan et al.,2017

    ;

    Ma et al.,2017

    ),which can mitigate said inadequacies.VarQC implemented in VarDA assumes that the errors of valid observations and usable observations (the VO,UO,see details in our companion paper) respectively follow Gaussian distributions and non-Gaussian distributions.Since we cannot distinguish between VO and UO prior to quality control,the observation errors are treated as though they are drawn from the sum of a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian distribution (i.e.,the observation errors are drawn from a contaminated Gaussian distribution,CGD).With this in mind,a new observational cost function for the VarQC method (

    Ingleby and Lorenc,1993

    ) is then obtained using Bayesian probability theory(

    Lorenc,1986

    ).In the VarQC method,the non-Gaussian innovation distribution comes from non-Gaussian observation errors,while the background error has a Gaussian distribution.Therefore,during the iterative optimization of the cost function,different weights can be iteratively assigned to observations with non-Gaussian error to improve analysis or mitigate the negative effects of outliers on the posterior analysis.The VarQC method can thus effectively absorb the usable information from these outliers during VarDA.The VarQC method of

    Anderson and J?rvinen (1999)

    has been developed in the 3DVAR assimilation of the GRAPES (Global/Regional Assimilation and PrEdiction System) regional model in our prior work (

    Ma et al.,2017

    ).Within it,VarQC was implemented with the Gaussian plus flat distribution for observation errors.The main goal of this study is to implement another VarQC method with Huber distribution (

    Tavolato and Isaksen,2015

    ) in the GRAPES m3DVAR ("m" represents model level) system.The performance of the new system is demonstrated using the mass field(geopotential height and temperature).

    In section 2,we will discuss the various VarQC schemes.We will also illustrate the non-Gaussian innovation distributions caused by non-Gaussian observation errors for different observation types using the assimilated data of the GRAPES model.The data and experimental design are described in section 3.Section 4 presents the idealized testing and the real-data experimental results of two VarQC methods.Finally,conclusions and discussions are shown in section 5.

    2.VarQC with non-Gaussian innovations

    2.1.VarQC with non-Gaussian observational error distribution mode

    VarDA assumes that the independent errors from observation and background are Gaussian-distributed and that the probability of outliers (gross errors) is zero,implying all the outliers can be removed with the CQC strategy.However,not all outliers are a result of gross errors.Such outliers contain useful information and thus should not be removed(

    Hampel,2001

    ).Moreover,with the imperfect CQC,the outliers probably occur in the assimilated observations due to the ambiguous rejection threshold.As a result,outliers that make it past the CQC results in innovation distributions with long,non-Gaussian tails (i.e.,the estimated innovation frequencies have a slower decay rate with larger innovations than the decay rate predicted by the Gaussian distribution,as seen in

    Fig.1

    ).In this study,we will only consider the non-Gaussianity of observation errors caused by outliers.It is well-known that improving the consistency between the assumed observational error distribution mode (OEDM) and the actual mode can generate a more accurate posterior solution in DA(

    Fowler and Van Leeuwen,2013

    ;

    Legrand et al.,2016

    ).

    Fig.1.Statistics of innovations (normalized by observational error) for (a) aircraft-reported temperature,(b)radiosonde pressure,(c) radiosonde horizontal wind,and (d) surface humidity.The red,blue,and black lines are,respectively,the Gaussian,Gaussian plus flat,and Huber norm distributions that have been fitted to the histograms of normalized innovations.The titles of the panels also indicate the fitted left and right transition points for Huber distribution,as well as the observation sample size (S).The observations are obtained from the domain in Fig.2 from 1 July to 31 September 2013.

    In order to obtain a better analysis,the contaminated Gaussian distribution (

    Tukey,1960

    ) is put forward to reduce (absorb) the impacts (information) of outliers on the posterior analysis.Compared to the Gaussian distribution,the contaminated Gaussian distribution is a better OEDM.In general,the contaminated Gaussian distribution is written as the sum of a Gaussian distribution (the “main” distribution) and some other distribution (the “perturbation” distribution;e.g.,Gaussian distributions with different means and variances).The CGD is expressed mathematically as:

    where ε is the contamination rate (the prior probability of outliers),N is the Gaussian “main” distribution,and H is the perturbation (contaminating) distribution.Compared to the Gaussian distribution,the CGD can better fit the long tails in the actual observation error distribution that is widely used to deal with outliers in the field of surveying and mapping(

    Yang,1991

    ;

    Zhu,1996

    ).One possible choice of the perturbation distribution in Eq.(1) is the flat distribution (box-car:

    Lahoz and Schneider,2014

    ).When used as an OEDM,the Gaussian plus flat distribution is consistent with the long-tail observations,meaning that these observations can be used effectively.In contrast,these observations would have been removed during the gross check of CQC.Following Eq.(1),the Gaussian plus a flat distribution

    P

    is defined as

    where F is the perturbed flat distribution (

    Anderson and J?rvinen,1999

    ).Using Eq.(2),we can derive an observational cost function (

    J

    ) from applying the CGD into Bayes’ theorem.It is an updated cost function with respect to the old observational cost function [

    J

    =δ/2; see the statement of δ in Eq.(6)] under an assumption of Gaussian error distribution (N)in 3DVAR.We can subsequently derive the gradient function (?

    J

    ) and weight function (

    W

    ) of variational quality control.These are shown below:

    Apart from the flat distribution,the Laplace distribution can be used as the perturbation distribution.The Laplace distribution is used frequently as the perturbation distribution because it is a powerful tool in robust statistics(

    Huber,2011

    ).The Gaussian plus Laplace distribution,a special CGD (

    Huber,1972

    ;

    Tavolato and Isaksen,2015

    ),is defined as

    where the c is the transition value and δ is the normalized innovation [normalized using the observational standard deviation (σ);see also (

    Tavolato and Isaksen,2015

    )].Note that there are two transition points,?

    c

    (left transition point) and+

    c

    (right transition point),which are calculated by fitting the normalized innovation histograms.These transition point values are shown in the titles of the panels in

    Fig.1

    .This is similar to the search for transition point values described in

    Tavolato and Isaksen (2015)

    .The magnitude of both transition points is likely affected by the frequency of outliers.These outliers are generally frequent in extreme weather events.This Gaussian plus Laplace CGD is also known as the Huber norm distribution and is a commonly used OEDM in the field of robust statistics.The robustness of using a Huber distribution,which refers to the insensitivity of small differences between the actual and the assumed mode (

    Zhu and Zeng,1999

    ),means the posterior analysis must be as close as possible to the normal solution calculated at the assumed OEDM (

    Zhu,1996

    ).It is regularly used to respond to the impacts of outliers.With the Huber distribution in Eq.(6),we can derive the updated observational cost function (

    J

    ),gradient function (?

    J

    ),and weight function (

    W

    ) of VarQC with respect to that of

    J

    .They are as follows:

    As seen in other fields,Huber distribution methods can yield more accurate and robust solutions than methods using Gaussian-distributed errors (

    Guitton and Symes,2003

    ;

    Huber,2011

    ).This increased robustness suggests that the use of the Huber distribution might be able to alleviate the negative impacts of outliers on the optimization analyses.Therefore,VarQC using the Huber distribution (hereafter referred to as “Huber-VarQC’’) can potentially produce more promising applications with respect to Flat-VarQC.

    2.2.Non-Gaussian observational errors in the GRAPES m3DVAR

    To illustrate the non-Gaussian observation error characteristics of commonly assimilated observations,we compared several types of observations against the GRAPES background to obtain innovation statistics.These observations are obtained from the Global Telecommunications System(GTS) and span a period from July 2013 to September 2013.The observation types are surface observations(SYNOP),radiosonde observations (TEMP),automated aircraft reports (AIREP),ship observations (SHIP),and satellite winds (SATOB).Before examining the innovation statistics,it should be noted in this study that we will assume that the non-Gaussianity of the innovations are only due to non-Gaussian observation errors.For instance,if the innovation statistics follow a Gaussian plus flat CGD,then the observation errors follow a similar CGD.With this in mind,the transition points of the observation error Huber distribution can be determined by the innovation Huber distribution.

    Figure 1

    shows the result of fitting several distributions (Gaussian,Gaussian plus flat,and Huber norm) to the estimated innovation distribution for several variables for several observation types.It can be seen that near the center of the innovation histogram,the innovations for the AIREP temperature (

    Fig.1a

    ) and TEMP pressure and wind (

    Figs.1b

    and

    c

    ) are consistent with all three distributions.However,towards the tails of the innovation histogram,the Gaussian plus flat distribution and the Huber distribution are more consistent with the histogram than that of the Gaussian distribution.Furthermore,the Huber distribution best fits the long tails of the innovation statistics in

    Fig.1

    .Similar long tail and fitting characteristics have also been identified for the innovation statistics of other observed variables of the various observation types (temperature,pressure,and wind;not shown),except for specific humidity.In other words,the CGD better fits the innovation statistics of pressure,temperature,and wind observations.However,the distribution of specific humidity innovations cannot be reasonably fitted by any of the three profiles (

    Fig.1d

    ).A similar issue with the humidity has been described by

    Pires et al.(2010)

    and

    Tavolato and Isaksen(2015)

    .Although the left tail is fitted reasonably by the Huber distribution,the left transition point of 0.85 implies that the contamination rate (~20%) is unreasonable.A reasonably normal contamination rate would be less than 10% for conventional observations (

    Hampel,1977

    ).A detailed discussion of VarQC parameters can be found in our companion paper.

    3.Experimental design

    3.1.Model configurations

    The new-generation operational numerical forecast system of the China Meteorological Administration,the GRAPES (

    Chen et al.,2008

    ;

    Zhang and Shen,2008

    ;

    Ma et

    al.,2009

    ;

    He et al.,2019a

    ) model version 3.0,and its threedimensional variational assimilation system has been applied in modeling many weather phenomena.These phenomena include extreme weather events,typhoons,sandstorms,and floods (

    Xu et al.,2012

    ;

    An et al.,2016

    ;

    Wang et al.,2016

    ).We have implemented two VarQC methods(Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC) within the GRAPES m3DVAR system.Here,we discuss these model confiurations,and we will examine the posterior analysis of the mass fields from these VarQC methods in section 4.

    Figure 2

    shows the domain used in the simulation experiments.The simulation domain is defined by a 351 × 251 grid in the horizontal,with a meridional and zonal spacing of 20 km.In the vertical,the domain is broken into 31 levels,with a model top pressure of 10 hPa.The operational forecasts from the Global Forecast System (GFS) are used to construct the initial and lateral boundary conditions(ICs and LBCs) used for running the GRAPES model.We have selected a region over east China (domain shaded in red in

    Fig.2

    ) for validation of the VarQC methods established in this paper.This region was selected because the high terrain over west China,particularly over the Tibetan Plateau,induces complex thermodynamic and dynamical effects (

    Wang and Zeng,2012

    ;

    Bao and Zhang,2013

    ;

    He et al.,2019b

    ) that make it difficult to obtain accurate simulations.

    3.2.Idealized experiments

    Fig.2.Simulation domain (10°?60°N,70°?140°E) used in running the GRAPES model for the real-data experiments of VarQC methods.The red shade shows the verified domain(18°?40°N,100°?125°E).

    Both idealized and real-data experiments are performed.

    Tables 1

    and

    2

    describe the configurations of the idealized experiments used to examine the robustness of using the different VarQC methods to handle the outliers.The CTRL1 control experiment assimilates the actual pressure observations of 12 sounding sites,which are referred to as “normal pressures”.Some of these 500-hPa and 850-hPa level normal pressure observations are then replaced with outlier pressure values (underlined in

    Table 1

    ).We will refer to these replaced observations as “outlier pressures” observations.Any pressure not equal to a specified level’s pressure will be treated as an outlier.For example,if an observed pressure at the 500-hPa height is not equal to 500 hPa,then that observation is an outlier.These outliers centered at the specified level are created by adding/subtracting a random draw from a uniform distribution within [1,2].The pressure errors (

    Table 1

    ) from the observation report at 500 hPa(0.7766),850 hPa (0.7975),and other levels (not shown) are consistent in the idealized experiments.We examine the impact of assimilating these outlier pressures with/without VarQC using the experiments given in

    Table 2

    and detailed in section 4.1.The CTRL1 and CTRL1-Outlier experiments do not utilize any VarQC algorithms,whereas the Flat-Outlier and Huber-Outlier experiments respectively utilize the Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC methods.

    Table 1.The rebuilding outliers (underlined) for pressure (units:hPa) on sounding sites.

    Table 2.Summary of the idealized experiment for different variational quality control.

    Out of the 12 assimilated sounding sites,10 sites are scattered around East China,near the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River (

    Fig.3a

    ).The remaining two sounding sites are located on the Korean Peninsula.Considering that observations that are sufficiently close can be used for "buddy checks" (

    Auligné,2014

    ) during VarQC,the observations of sites 11 and 12 were not constructed as outliers(

    Table 1

    ) since they are far from the other 10 sites.The pressure values from sites 1,3,and 5 at the 500-hPa level,as well as the pressure values from sites 1 to 10 at the 850-hPa level,were constructed as outliers (

    Table 1

    ).Note that the pressures set as outliers would not be rejected by CQC.In other words,these outliers would be assimilated in all experiments,except for the CTRL1 experiment.Apart from CTRL1,which assimilates the normal pressures from 12 sounding sites without using VarQC,the other three experiments assimilate the same outlier pressures by using different quality control methods.

    3.3.Real-data experiments

    The configurations of the three real-data VarQC assimilation experiments are listed in

    Table 3

    .These experiments spanned the entire month of August in 2015 by using the fitted transition points from the training observations in 2013.Unlike the earlier idealized experiments,which only assimilated pressure observations,these real data experiments assimilated GTS observations.The GTS observation types include TEMP,SYNOP,AIREP,SHIP,and SATOB,and are assimilated using a 6-hour assimilation window into the three experiments.Furthermore,all three experiments are performed using the cold start method.The analyses are performed each day at 0000,0600,1200,and 1800 UTC.The experiments utilize the old BgQC threshold limit to evaluate the impacts of existing long-tails observations (identified in

    Fig.1

    ).In this study,the Flat-VarQC was turned on during the first iteration of the 3DVAR cost function optimization in every cycle of the assimilation experiments.This first-iteration activation is unlike earlier work where VarQC’s modification to the 3DVAR cost function was only introduced after iterating the cost function minimization a specified number of times (

    Anderson and J?rvinen,1999

    ).This late-inclusion in earlier work was done to prevent convergence issues.We were able to activate the Flat-VarQC algorithm in the first iteration because we did not experience convergence issues in most cases.The only time where we experienced convergence issues is represented in

    Fig.8b

    .We were able to mostly avoid convergence issues because the first iterations’innovations were relatively small,meaning that the starting point of the Flat-VarQC-modified cost function minimization should be within or near the convex region containing the cost function’s global minima.Future work can investigate whether we should turn on the Flat-VarQC at a later iteration step.It should be noted that for the real-data experiments listed in

    Table 3

    ,the innovations of specific humidity in the Huber-VarQC experiment cannot be effectively fitted by a Gaussian plus flat or a Huber norm OEDM in the statistics due to its unknown non-Gaussian property (

    Pires et al.,2010

    ).To reduce the possibility of the Huber-VarQC experiment producing analyses that are worse than the CTRL2 experiment,while keeping VarQC active for specific humidity,we opted to use the OEDM that is closer to the traditionally prescribed Gaussian observation error distribution:the Gaussian plus flat OEDM.Thus,specific humidity observations in the Huber-VarQC are assimilated using the Gaussian plus flat OEDM,while all other observations are assimilated using Huber norm OEDM.In other words,the Huber-VarQC experiment utilized a hybrid of both Gaussian plus flat and Huber norm OEDMs.

    Table 3.Summary of simulation experiments for different variational quality control schemes.

    Fig.3.(a) Positions of sounding sites used in the robustness experiments.(b) Vertical profiles of RMSE of geopotential height for CTRL1 (red line),CTRL1-Outlier (green line),Flat-Outlier (blue line),and Huber-Outlier(black line).(c) Vertical distribution of observation weights at the sounding sites in the Huber-Outlier experiment.The top (bottom) of each x-coordinate shows the total number of the assimilated pressures (the site number).

    4.Results

    4.1.Robustness of variational quality control

    Current VarQC methods are based on using contaminated Gaussian distributions to robustly handle outliers.To explore the actual robustness of two VarQC methods,four experiments were designed to assimilate pressure observations by including/excluding outliers as listed in

    Table 1

    .

    Figure 3a

    shows the position of the sounding sites used in the idealized experiments,which assimilate the same number of pressure observations with the vertical level up to 10 hPa,as shown in

    Fig.3c

    .Over the domain in

    Fig.3a

    ,the ERA-Interim reanalysis pressure level data was used to estimate the root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of the posterior geopotential height fields of the four experiments (

    Fig.3b

    ).Compared to CTRL1,the RMSEs of CTRL1-Outlier are substantially larger at 500 hPa (400?600 hPa) and 850 hPa (700?1000 hPa).These RMSE increases happened since CTRL1-Outlier assimilated the rebuilt outlier observations near these pressure levels (

    Table 1

    ),but CTRL1 assimilated the normal versions of said observations.In other words,replacing some of the normal pressures with outlier pressures and assimilating the “contaminated” dataset without VarQC algorithms caused a degradation of the posterior geopotential height field.

    When the outlier pressures are absorbed in Flat-Outlier,the posterior geopotential height field is also degraded with respect to CTRL1.However,Flat-Outlier’s RMSEs are slightly smaller than those of CTRL1-Outlier near 500 hPa.These results indicate that even with Flat-VarQC method,the inclusion of outlier pressures degraded the posterior geopotential height field.In contrast to CTRL1-Outlier and Flat-Outlier,Huber-Outlier showed no increase in the geopotential height RMSEs when the outlier pressures were included.More encouragingly,in the vicinity of 500 hPa,Huber-Outlier’s geopotential height RMSEs are smaller than those of CTRL1.These results indicate that the Huber-VarQC method has strong robustness against outliers.

    To explain why the Huber-VarQC method has strong robustness against outliers,the analysis weights of Huber-VarQC were examined.The analysis weights of Flat-VarQC [Eq.(5)] and Huber-VarQC [Eq.(9)] of the assimilated observations in the experiments are determined at each iteration step by its parameters and intermediate innovation by the VarQC 3DVAR system.The weights from the last iteration are analyzed in this study.Following the discussions of

    Anderson and J?rvinen (1999)

    ,we identify observations with weights in the range of (0,0.25] as erroneous,observations with weights in the range of (0.25,0.5] as possibly erroneous,observations with weights in the range of (0.5,0.75]as suspicious,and observations with weights in the range of(0.75,1] as valid.The last-step weights of Huber-Outlier show that all the created outlier pressures were subjected to weight reduction (

    Fig.3c

    ).More specifically,the pressure observations of sites 2 and 5 at the 850-hPa level are reduced from 1 to within (0.5,0.75],meaning that they were identified as suspicious observations.The weight of the pressure observation of site 8 at the 850-hPa level fell from 1 to within (0.25,0.5],meaning that the Huber-VarQC method identified the pressure observation as a possible erroneous observation.Similarly,some of the pressure observations at the 500-hPa level also are identified as suspicious (site 4),possibly erroneous (sites 3 and 8),and erroneous (sites 1 and 5).In other words,the negative impacts of assimilating outlier pressures were mitigated by the relatively small observation weights assigned by the Huber-VarQC method.It should be noted that even though both Huber-VarQC and Flat-VarQC adjusted the pressure observation weights,Huber-Outlier substantially outperformed Flat-Outlier.While the Flat-VarQC method’s weight adjustments resulted in a slight RMSE improvement near 500 hPa,relative to CTRL1-Outlier,all of the pressure observations were assigned weights within (0.75,1.0] (not shown).These large weights indicate that outliers are not well identified.The origin of these large weights is likely due to the fact that the Gaussian plus flat distribution does not match the actual observation error distribution as well as the Huber distribution.Moreover,the Huber-VarQC method also reduced observation weights at pressure levels with no outliers(

    Fig.3c

    ).For example,Huber-VarQC recognized the innovation with a pressure equal to 925 hPa at site 4 (red dot) as erroneous.In other words,the VarQC algorithms also assigns a small weight to observations where the quality of the background field is likely poor.Thus,high-quality initial conditions are required when initiating the VarQC assimilation system.Consequentially,because the Flat-VarQC method had difficulties in mitigating the negative impacts of assimilating outlier pressures and dealing with poor quality background fields,Flat-Outlier did not perform as well as Huber-Outlier.

    In summary,the idealized experiments show that the Huber-VarQC method has a substantially stronger capability to recognize outliers than the Flat-VarQC method.This suggests that the Huber-VarQC method is more robust at handling outliers than Flat-VarQC.Also,the Flat-Outlier experiment produced a slightly better posterior analysis than the CTRL1-Outlier experiment because the Flat-VarQC method did adjust the observations’ weights.Finally,the experiments indicate that in the absence of VarQC,outliers that pass CQC can degrade the posterior analysis in the current GRAPES m3DVAR system,as opposed to a posterior analysis generated without outliers.

    4.2.Observational weight features

    The impacts of the Flat-and Huber-VarQC methods were also examined in the context of assimilating real data.

    Figure 4a

    shows the three-month statistics for surface pressures in a fashion similar to

    Fig.1

    .As seen in

    Fig.4a

    ,the three distributions (Gaussian,Gaussian plus flat,and Huber distribution) show a similar fit to the right tail of the innovation distribution.Nonetheless,because the left tail of the innovation distribution (green histogram bars in

    Fig.4a

    ) is fatter than the right tail,the innovation distribution is not fitted well by any of these profiles.This is as expected as fitting symmetrical distributions to asymmetric statistics would result in some failure in the fitting.While it is uncertain that the histogram-estimated innovation left-tail probability density is correct,the current DA with a Gaussian OEDM would treat observations from this regime as valid(weights equal to 1).As such,the inclusion of these observations could bring uncertainty to the posterior analysis.Furthermore,the histogram in

    Fig.4a

    shows a precipitous cut-off at the ?4 magnitude of innovations due to the threshold limit assigned in the current background quality check.This confirms that observation errors after CQC are not guaranteed to be Gaussian-distributed.To examine Huber-VarQC’s ability to handle the uncertainties discussed in the previous paragraph,a special test of Huber-VarQC was performed for 0600 UTC 10 August 2015.In view of the robustness of Huber-VarQC,this test was performed with the same configurations explained in

    Table 3

    except that the background quality check threshold coefficient was relaxed from 4 to 16.As seen in

    Fig.4b

    ,the relaxation resulted in the extension of the green histogram to stronger negative normalized innovation values,indicating that substantially more surface pressure observations were assimilated.More importantly,most of the weights corresponding to observations in the green histograms are less than 0.25 (

    Fig.4b

    ) and are thus identified as erroneous.Therefore,Huber-VarQC can assign weights based on the observational quality to absorb (reject) the usable (harmful) information of outliers.This suggests that when the Huber-VarQC method is used,the threshold limits in BgQC can be relaxed to assimilate more observations.This way,the uncertainty introduced by assimilating observations with strong negative normalized innovations (left tail in

    Fig.4a

    ) can also be relieved significantly.The sensitivity of the posterior analysis to different threshold limits can be studied in the future.Nonetheless,this particular test indicates that the Huber-VarQC method can robustly handle outlier surface pressure observations.

    Fig.4.(a) As in Fig.1 but for surface pressure observations from July to September 2013.(b) Statistics of innovations and weights for surface pressure at 0600 UTC 10 August 2015,in a Huber-VarQC test with the background quality check threshold coefficient relaxed from 4 to 16 in the background quality check.(c,d) Statistics of the innovations and weights for aircraft-reported temperature,as assimilated by Flat-VarQC (c) and Huber-VarQC(d).The colored dots represent the magnitude of observation weights in the VarQC methods and correspond to the yaxes to the right.The theoretical weight curves of the two VarQC methods are shown in the bottom-right subplots of panels (c) and (d).The colors of the theoretical weight curves are consistent with the weight colorbar at the bottom of the figure.

    To examine the effectiveness of the two VarQC methods in adjusting the observation weights,we assimilated the conventional observations using the two VarQC methods at 0600 UTC on 10 August 2015 but without relaxing the BgQC threshold limits.This time was randomly chosen from the long-period assimilation experiments.

    Figures 4c

    and

    4d

    respectively show the last-step observation weights of the aircraft-reported temperature observations produced by Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC.As seen in

    Figs.4c

    and

    4d

    ,the weights assigned by the two VarQC methods have different characteristics.Firstly,in the Gaussian domain,the analysis weights of the Flat-VarQC method are all approximately equal to but less than 1,whereas the Huber-VarQC method’s Gaussian domain analysis weights are exactly equal to 1.When we go beyond the Gaussian domain,the weights of the Flat-VarQC experiment decrease steeply.In contrast,Huber-VarQC’s weights decrease smoothly with increasing innovations.In other words,Flat-VarQC’s weights display an "n" shape [Eq.(5),subgraph in

    Fig.4c

    ],whereas those of Huber-VarQC display a "π" shape [Eq.(9),subgraph in

    Fig.4d

    ].Therefore,these VarQC methods can effectively adjust the analysis weights for real observations.

    4.3.Optimization of analysis increment

    The analysis increment is the difference between the analysis and the background.Thus,the incremental magnitude can be used as an indicator of how much an observation can correct the background after quality control and data assimilation.This incremental response can also reveal the influence of variational quality controlled observations.The differences in 850-hPa geopotential height increment magnitudes between Flat-VarQC/Huber-VarQC and CTRL2 are shown in

    Fig.5

    .Note that the increment magnitude characteristics of the geopotential height and temperature fields are similar(not shown).The two VarQC methods have distinctly different impacts on the analysis increment of the geopotential height as compared to CTRL2.The signs of the increment magnitude differences in

    Fig.5

    are consistent between both VarQC methods in most regions.However,in regions where both VarQC methods have larger increment magnitudes than CTRL2 (red shaded regions in

    Figs.5a

    and

    5b

    ),Flat-VarQC has noticeably larger increment magnitudes than Huber-VarQC.Furthermore,in regions where both VarQC methods have smaller increment magnitudes than CTRL2 (green shaded regions in

    Figs.5a

    and

    5b

    ),Huber-VarQC has noticeably smaller increment magnitudes than Flat-VarQC.Taken together,these increment magnitude differences imply that Flat-VarQC generally has larger increment magnitudes than Huber-VarQC.The observational weights generated by Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC are also plotted in

    Fig.5

    .While the two VarQC methods utilize different observational error distributions,the reduction of the observational weight for Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC occurs at the same or adjacent stations.The observations in Flat-VarQC,whose weights fall in the range of (0.75,1] and are flagged by grey circles,are in locations similar to those of Huber-VarQC.However,there are differences between the two VarQC methods’weights.Observations with weights under 0.75 are spaced further apart in Flat-VarQC than those of Huber-VarQC.Furthermore,Flat-VarQC’s sub-0.75 weights tend to be smaller than those of Huber-VarQC.From these results,we can infer that Huber-VarQC is more inclusive than Flat-VarQC.Aside from that,

    Fig.5a

    reveals that the absolute differences between the increment magnitudes of Flat-VarQC and CTRL2 are stronger around observations with reduced weights.This tendency is particularly noticeable around observation sites with severe weight reduction.A similar pattern can be seen with the Huber-VarQC method (

    Fig.5b

    ).In other words,for both VarQC methods,the higher the weight reduction,the greater the change in increment magnitude around the weight-reduction sites.As we will see in the next section,this pattern improved the analyzed geopotential height field relative to CTRL2.

    Fig.5.Differences in analysis increment magnitudes for geopotential height (units:gpm) at the 850-hPa level between the Flat-VarQC/Huber-VarQC and the CTRL2 experiments at 0600 UTC 16 August 2015.(a) Flat-VarQC minus CTRL2,(b) Huber-VarQC minus CTRL2.The small circles indicate the VarQC weights of pressure observations at sites from TEMP,SYNOP,and SHIP data.The black circles represent erroneous observations with weights within (0,0.25],the purple circles represent potentially erroneous observations with weights within(0.25,0.5],the blue circles represent suspicious observations with weights within (0.5,0.75],and the grey circles represent valid observations with weights within (0.75,1].

    4.4.Improvement of mass field

    The improvement of initial conditions is critical to improving model forecasts.

    Figure 6

    shows the differences between the CTRL2,Flat-VarQC,and Huber-VarQC experiments and ERA-Interim reanalysis for geopotential height at 850 hPa for 0600 UTC 16 August 2015,which is after one DA cycle.We use the ERA-Interim reanalysis as our validating truth.The smaller the difference,the closer the geopotential height is to the ERA-Interim reanalysis.The results from the three experiments are noticeably different from the ERA-Interim reanalysis.These differences are especially large over the middle-west and northern parts shown in

    Fig.6

    ,where the maximum difference is about 20 geopotential meters (gpm).Over other areas,the simulations from the GRAPES model are closer to ERA-Interim with a difference within about 5 geopotential meters.We now compare the experiments against each other.Compared to CTRL2,the differences between the VarQC experiments and ERA-Interim are smaller over most regions(

    Figs.6b

    and

    c

    ).These regions,which include the regions marked by black ellipses,are also areas in the vicinity of reduced-weight observations.Another point of interest is that the Huber-VarQC method’s posterior analysis is closer to the truth than that of Flat-VarQC.For example,even though the Flat-VarQC method only identified one erroneous observation (black circle) in the ellipse regions of the bottom-left corner of

    Fig.6b

    ,the resulting analysis over the Sichuan province was further from the ERA-Interim than that of CTRL2.In contrast,over the same regions,the Huber-VarQC method identified four observations for which the weights are reduced (one possible erroneous observation and three suspicious observations) and resulted in a deviation from ERA-Interim that is smaller than both CTRL2 and Flat-VarQC.More notably,the Huber-VarQC method reduced the geopotential height deviation from ERA-Interim to about 9 gpm (as opposed to about 13 gpm in other experiments) without treating any of those observations as erroneous.Aside from the region marked by the lower-left black ellipse,the Huber-VarQC results are also closer to ERAInterim in the other regions marked by black ellipses,as compared to the Flat-VarQC results.This suggests that the increment response (

    Fig.5

    ) to the weight-reduction of observations made the geopotential height closer to the ERAInterim reanalysis in the VarQC experiments,particularly for Huber-VarQC.The temperature shows a similar performance (not shown).Similar improvements are also observed for geopotential heights at most other pressure levels(shown in

    Figs.7

    and

    8

    ).

    Figure 7

    shows the vertical profiles of geopotential height RMSE for the three experiments at 0600 UTC on 16 August 2015,using the ERA-Interim reanalysis as the benchmark.The RMSEs of geopotential height from the two VarQC experiments are noticeably smaller than those of CTRL2 at most levels,and the Huber-VarQC method has the smallest RMSE.The best performance in Huber-VarQC is consistent with the idealized experiments (

    Fig.3b

    ).This is because the Huber-VarQC method can assimilate outliers more robustly than Flat-VarQC while mitigating non-Gaussian observation errors' negative impacts.Furthermore,the VarQC experiments performed better at the lower-to-middle levels than at the middle-upper levels (200?500 hPa).This improvement is also seen in the long period DA experiments (

    Fig.9

    ).This improvement in the long period DA experiments is probably because the Huber-VarQC method in the GRAPES m3DVAR system used the unchanged transition points at different levels based on the discussion by

    Tavolato and Isaksen (2015)

    .

    Fig.6.Differences of posterior analysis for geopotential height (units:gpm) between (a) CTRL2,(b) Flat-VarQC,(c) Huber-VarQC experiments,and ERA-Interim reanalysis at the 850-hPa level at 0600 UTC 16 August 2015.Circles indicate the weight magnitude at sites,as shown in Fig.5.

    Fig.7.Vertical RMSE profiles of posterior geopotential height for CTRL2 (red line),Flat-VarQC (blue line),and Huber-VarQC (black line) at 0600 UTC 16 August 2015.

    To confirm that the Huber-VarQC method generally yields better RMSEs than Flat-VarQC,the two VarQC methods are continuously performed at 0000,0600,1200,and 1800 UTC each day for a total of 31 days over August 2015.The configurations of these VarQC continuous DA experiments and a control continuous DA experiment(CTRL2) are shown in

    Table 3

    .The ERA-Interim-relative RMSEs of the posterior geopotential height over eastern China (red shaded region shown in

    Fig.2

    ) are shown in

    Figs.8

    and

    9

    .The differences of geopotential height RMSE at 850 hPa (

    Fig.8a

    ) and 500 hPa (

    Fig.8b

    ) are calculated with Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC minus CTRL2.The more negative the RMSE differences are for a VarQC experiment,the better the performance of said VarQC experiment relative to CTRL2.The 850-hPa geopotential height RMSE differences in

    Fig.8a

    from the two VarQC experiments are negative at most times,indicating that the VarQC experiments are superior to CTRL2 at 850 hPa.Furthermore,the Huber-VarQC method has smaller 850-hPa geopotential height RMSEs than the Flat-VarQC method most of the time.The RMSE improvement of geopotential height at 500 hPa is not as straightforward as at 850 hPa,but the RMSEs (

    Fig.8b

    ) of Huber-VarQC are still smaller than that of CTRL2 at most times.In general,the RMSEs of Flat-VarQC are better than those of CTRL2.But,Flat-VarQC shows a bad RMSE difference with a value of~2.8 against CRTL2 at 1800 UTC on 26 August.This event is probably because of the convergence issues in the cost function minimization.These findings suggest that the two VarQC methods tested here generally improve the low-level analysis field for geopotential height,especially in the Huber-VarQC experiment,and that the improvements are weaker at middle-upper levels.

    Fig.8.Time evolution of the RMSE differences calculated with Flat-VarQC (blue line) and Huber-VarQC (black line) minus CTRL2 for posterior geopotential height at (a) 850 hPa and (b) 500 hPa,spanning August 2015.

    The mean of vertical profile RMSE for geopotential height from the long period experiments over August 2015 is shown in

    Fig.9

    .Both Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC improve the geopotential height at low-middle levels(500?1000 hPa),with the latter VarQC method producing greater improvements.In middle-upper levels,the RMSE of both VarQC methods is similar to the control experiment.The RMSE profiles of temperature also show similar performances,but weaker (not shown).These results indicate that the initial version of VarQC needs to be further improved.For instance,the parameters of the left-and right-transition points in the Huber-VarQC method can vary with height.However,in these experiments,these parameters are fixed.Further study is needed to refine the usage of these parameters.

    5.Conclusion and discussion

    The VarQC method is a powerful tool for treating outliers that would otherwise amplify uncertainties in variational assimilation or be discarded.Since VarQC is integrated into VarDA’s optimization process,VarQC can iteratively remediate the deficiencies of CQC.In this study,we derived the equations governing a VarQC method that utilizes a Gaussian plus flat CGD,as well as the equations that govern a VarQC method that utilizes a Huber norm CGD.Following that,we implemented these two VarQC methods(Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC) in the GRAPES m3DVAR assimilation system based on the actual non-Gaussian innovations.

    Fig.9.As in Fig.7 but for the mean of RMSE spanning August 2015.

    These VarQC methods were then tested in idealized experiments.These experiments show that the Flat-VarQC method lacks robustness against outliers but nonetheless provides a slight improvement over just using CQC to treat outliers.The Huber-VarQC method is more robust than Flat-VarQC because it can accurately identify the outliers and reduce the outliers’ contamination of the posterior analysis.We then demonstrated that the Huber-VarQC method generated a better posterior analysis of the geopotential height compared to the Flat-QC method.

    These VarQC methods were then tested with real-data experiments.When the analysis weights in Flat-VarQCs were plotted with respect to innovation,the weights formed an "n" shaped pattern.Likewise,the Huber-VarQC analysis weights formed a "π" shape.These shapes are consistent with the corresponding theoretical curves of Flat-VarQC and Huber-VarQC.Furthermore,the results from the case study indicate that VarQC can have a positive impact on the posterior analysis of the mass field by reducing the weights for uncertain observations (innovations).A subsequent examination of the mass field RMSEs revealed that the Huber-VarQC experiment had noticeably better mass field RMSEs than those of the control and Flat-VarQC experiments.The results of the long period experiment demonstrated that the VarQC experiments performed better at the lower levels than at the middle-upper levels.Finally,the Flat-VarQC experiment does have a better performance than the control experiment,but it does not perform as well as Huber-VarQC.

    Our experiments indicate that applying either of the two VarQC methods can improve the analyzed lower level mass field,especially so in the case of Huber-VarQC.However,the two VarQC methods made no noticeable improvements in the mass field at the middle-upper levels.Furthermore,in comparison to the posterior of CTRL2 (not shown),Huber-VarQC shows a favorable performance for specific humidity and wind but Flat-VarQC shows slightly poorer performance compared to CTRL2.Possible reasons for this could be investigated in future work.

    Another important avenue of future research concerns applying the VarQC methods to satellite observations.A key challenge with satellite observations is that the innovations often follow non-Gaussian distributions (

    Geer and Bauer,2011

    ;

    Harnisch et al.,2016

    ;

    Minamide and Zhang,2017

    ;

    Honda et al.,2018

    ;

    Chan et al.,2020

    ),which complicates the issue of prescribing a good CGD for VarQC.Aside from that,the radiative transfer observation operators used in assimilating satellite observations are often nonlinear(

    Bauer et al.,2011

    ),especially for infrared observations.This nonlinearity can lead to convergence issues during the cost function minimization.These challenges can be addressed in future work.

    Future work can also examine the impacts of using VarQC to assimilate conventional and unconventional observations during complex phenomena (e.g.,precipitation,extreme weather events,and typhoons).Finally,the sensitivity of relaxing threshold limits in Huber-VarQC can be examined in the future,and more studies will be conducted when the variational quality control methods have gained more maturity in the GRAPES m3DVAR system.We will be submitting a companion paper about optimization parameters in VarQC.

    The goal of VarQC is to improve forecasts by enhancing our use of outlier observations.With the implementation of our Huber-and Flat-VarQC methods in GRAPES m3DVAR,observations that will otherwise be rejected can contribute to improving forecasts.

    :The authors thank Yinghui LU for his helpful advice and grammar correction.Jie HE is supported by the China Scholarship Council.This work is primarily sponsored by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No.2018YFC1506702 and Grant No.2017YFC1502000).We acknowledge the High Performance Computing Center of Nanjing University of Information Science &Technology (NUIST) for their support of this work.The datasets in this paper are archived and accessible on the supercomputer of NUIST.

    亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国产免费男女视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 91在线观看av| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 婷婷亚洲欧美| av.在线天堂| av在线蜜桃| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 国产老妇女一区| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 久久久久久久久中文| 91狼人影院| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产高潮美女av| 国产精品无大码| 国产精品一及| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 极品教师在线视频| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 国产 一区精品| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 久久久欧美国产精品| 免费观看在线日韩| 两个人的视频大全免费| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| a级毛色黄片| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 成年版毛片免费区| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 91久久精品电影网| av福利片在线观看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 日本三级黄在线观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 亚洲在线观看片| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 久久久久久久久久成人| 亚洲性久久影院| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 十八禁网站免费在线| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 97在线视频观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 嫩草影院新地址| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 51国产日韩欧美| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 99热只有精品国产| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 看黄色毛片网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 熟女电影av网| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 久久久色成人| 三级毛片av免费| 久久久精品大字幕| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 成人综合一区亚洲| 午夜视频国产福利| 少妇高潮的动态图| 嫩草影视91久久| 97超视频在线观看视频| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 亚洲国产色片| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 99久久精品热视频| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 日本 av在线| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产老妇女一区| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 毛片女人毛片| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 综合色av麻豆| 国产日本99.免费观看| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 一a级毛片在线观看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 尾随美女入室| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 久久久欧美国产精品| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 九色成人免费人妻av| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 一级黄色大片毛片| 深夜a级毛片| 嫩草影院精品99| 三级毛片av免费| 内地一区二区视频在线| 97超碰精品成人国产| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 91久久精品电影网| 免费观看精品视频网站| 免费av观看视频| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 91久久精品电影网| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 午夜a级毛片| 久久久久久大精品| 国内精品宾馆在线| av黄色大香蕉| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 久久久久性生活片| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 成人国产麻豆网| 色播亚洲综合网| 午夜久久久久精精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 99久久精品热视频| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 97碰自拍视频| 亚洲av一区综合| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 熟女电影av网| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 成人二区视频| 日本熟妇午夜| 黄片wwwwww| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 少妇的逼好多水| 简卡轻食公司| 国产成人一区二区在线| 最好的美女福利视频网| 久久6这里有精品| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| av福利片在线观看| 久久久久国内视频| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 久久久久国产网址| 午夜a级毛片| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 91av网一区二区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚州av有码| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产黄片美女视频| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 搞女人的毛片| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产精品久久视频播放| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 老司机福利观看| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 最好的美女福利视频网| 日本a在线网址| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看 | 最新中文字幕久久久久| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 国产高清三级在线| 此物有八面人人有两片| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产在线男女| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 99久久精品热视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| av天堂在线播放| 在现免费观看毛片| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 性色avwww在线观看| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 亚洲精品色激情综合| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国内精品宾馆在线| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 中国国产av一级| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 久久久成人免费电影| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 日本黄色片子视频| 日本五十路高清| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 在线a可以看的网站| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| av中文乱码字幕在线| 我要搜黄色片| 老司机福利观看| h日本视频在线播放| 深夜精品福利| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 日本黄色片子视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 中国国产av一级| 级片在线观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 久久久久久久久大av| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 欧美日本视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 韩国av在线不卡| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 级片在线观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 精品午夜福利在线看| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 最好的美女福利视频网| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 成年av动漫网址| 精品福利观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 少妇高潮的动态图| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 69人妻影院| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲无线在线观看| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 一级毛片电影观看 | 嫩草影院新地址| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 美女大奶头视频| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 久久精品人妻少妇| 99热全是精品| 禁无遮挡网站| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 日本熟妇午夜| 亚洲内射少妇av| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 此物有八面人人有两片| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 久久草成人影院| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 嫩草影院新地址| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 草草在线视频免费看| 国产日本99.免费观看| av.在线天堂| 亚洲av熟女| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 免费av毛片视频| 国产在视频线在精品| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 天堂动漫精品| 看黄色毛片网站| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久热精品热| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产三级在线视频| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 久久精品夜色国产| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 精品久久久噜噜| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| www.色视频.com| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 两个人的视频大全免费| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久久国产成人免费| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 国产亚洲欧美98| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 日本三级黄在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 久久久久久久久中文| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 色综合色国产| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 99久国产av精品| www.色视频.com| 国产色婷婷99| 舔av片在线| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 久久草成人影院| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美潮喷喷水| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 91av网一区二区| av黄色大香蕉| 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 一级毛片电影观看 | 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| av专区在线播放| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 老司机影院成人| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 国产精品一及| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 久久6这里有精品| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产在视频线在精品| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 日韩高清综合在线| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看 | 少妇的逼好多水| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 色综合站精品国产| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 成人二区视频| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 黄色一级大片看看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久中文看片网| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 搡老岳熟女国产| 如何舔出高潮| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产精华一区二区三区| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产精品久久视频播放| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 毛片女人毛片| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| ponron亚洲| 国产美女午夜福利| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | aaaaa片日本免费| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 少妇的逼水好多| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 久久久午夜欧美精品| av黄色大香蕉| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 久久草成人影院| av国产免费在线观看| 99久国产av精品| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 特级一级黄色大片| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 如何舔出高潮| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 97超视频在线观看视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 国产成人福利小说| 尾随美女入室| 69人妻影院| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 久久久色成人| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 成人二区视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 成人综合一区亚洲| 乱人视频在线观看| 国产成人freesex在线 | av天堂中文字幕网| 精品人妻视频免费看| 成人二区视频| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产午夜精品论理片| 久久午夜福利片| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 草草在线视频免费看| 级片在线观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 春色校园在线视频观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 亚洲最大成人av| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 俺也久久电影网| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 色播亚洲综合网| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 99热全是精品| 热99在线观看视频| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久|