scholarly journals Formulations for Estimating Spatial Variations of Analysis Error Variance to Improve Multiscale and Multistep Variational Data Assimilation

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Qin Xu ◽  
Li Wei
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Spatial Variation ◽  
Variational Analysis ◽  
Variance Reduction ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Spatial Variations ◽  
Variational Data Assimilation ◽  
Coarse Resolution ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Analysis Error

When the coarse-resolution observations used in the first step of multiscale and multistep variational data assimilation become increasingly nonuniform and/or sparse, the error variance of the first-step analysis tends to have increasingly large spatial variations. However, the analysis error variance computed from the previously developed spectral formulations is constant and thus limited to represent only the spatially averaged error variance. To overcome this limitation, analytic formulations are constructed to efficiently estimate the spatial variation of analysis error variance and associated spatial variation in analysis error covariance. First, a suite of formulations is constructed to efficiently estimate the error variance reduction produced by analyzing the coarse-resolution observations in one- and two-dimensional spaces with increased complexity and generality (from uniformly distributed observations with periodic extension to nonuniformly distributed observations without periodic extension). Then, three different formulations are constructed for using the estimated analysis error variance to modify the analysis error covariance computed from the spectral formulations. The successively improved accuracies of these three formulations and their increasingly positive impacts on the two-step variational analysis (or multistep variational analysis in first two steps) are demonstrated by idealized experiments.

scholarly journals Investigating the Use of Ensemble Variance to Predict Observation Error of Representation

2017 ◽  
Vol 145 (2) ◽  
pp. 653-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Satterfield ◽  
Daniel Hodyss ◽  
David D. Kuhl ◽  
Craig H. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Forecast Model ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Observation Error ◽  
Coarse Resolution ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Flow Dependence ◽  
Representation Error ◽  
Resolution Model ◽  
Predictive Relationship

Data assimilation schemes combine observational data with a short-term model forecast to produce an analysis. However, many characteristics of the atmospheric states described by the observations and the model differ. Observations often measure a higher-resolution state than coarse-resolution model grids can describe. Hence, the observations may measure aspects of gradients or unresolved eddies that are poorly resolved by the filtered version of reality represented by the model. This inconsistency, known as observation representation error, must be accounted for in data assimilation schemes. In this paper the ability of the ensemble to predict the variance of the observation error of representation is explored, arguing that the portion of representation error being detected by the ensemble variance is that portion correlated to the smoothed features that the coarse-resolution forecast model is able to predict. This predictive relationship is explored using differences between model states and their spectrally truncated form, as well as commonly used statistical methods to estimate observation error variances. It is demonstrated that the ensemble variance is a useful predictor of the observation error variance of representation and that it could be used to account for flow dependence in the observation error covariance matrix.

scholarly journals Accounting for Correlated Observation Error in a Dual-Formulation 4D Variational Data Assimilation System

2017 ◽  
Vol 145 (3) ◽  
pp. 1019-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Campbell ◽  
Elizabeth A. Satterfield ◽  
Benjamin Ruston ◽  
Nancy L. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Variational Data Assimilation ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Radiosonde Data ◽  
Observation Error ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Data Assimilation System ◽  
Assimilation System

Appropriate specification of the error statistics for both observational data and short-term forecasts is necessary to produce an optimal analysis. Observation error stems from instrument error, forward model error, and error of representation. All sources of observation error, particularly error of representation, can lead to nonzero correlations. While correlated forecast error has been accounted for since the early days of atmospheric data assimilation, observation error has typically been treated as uncorrelated until relatively recently. Thinning, averaging, and/or inflation of the assigned observation error variance have been employed to compensate for unaccounted error correlations, especially for high-resolution satellite data. In this study, the benefits of accounting for nonzero vertical (interchannel) correlation for both the Advanced Technology Microwave Satellite (ATMS) and Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) in the NRL Atmospheric Variational Data Assimilation System-Accelerated Representer (NAVDAS-AR) are assessed. The vertical observation error covariance matrix for the ATMS and IASI instruments was estimated using the Desroziers method. The results suggest lowering the assigned error variance and introducing strong correlations, especially in the moisture-sensitive channels. Strong positive impact on forecast skill (verified against both the ECMWF analyses and high-quality radiosonde data) is shown in both the ATMS and IASI instruments. Additionally, the convergence of the iterative solver in NAVDAS-AR can be improved by small modifications to the observation error covariance matrices, resulting in further reduction in RMS error.

scholarly journals On model error in variational data assimilation

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Shutyaev ◽  
Arthur Vidard ◽  
François-Xavier Le Dimet ◽  
Igor Gejadze
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Nonlinear Evolution ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Variational Data Assimilation ◽  
Initial Condition ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Auxiliary Data ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Analysis Error ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe problem of variational data assimilation for a nonlinear evolution model is formulated as an optimal control problem to find the initial condition. The optimal solution (analysis) error arises due to the errors in the input data (background and observation errors). Under the Gaussian assumption the optimal solution error covariance can be constructed using the Hessian of the auxiliary data assimilation problem. The aim of this paper is to study the evolution of model errors via data assimilation. The optimal solution error covariances are derived in the case of imperfect model and for the weak constraint formulation, when the model euations determine the cost functional.

Maximum Likelihood Ensemble Filter: Theoretical Aspects

2005 ◽  
Vol 133 (6) ◽  
pp. 1710-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milija Zupanski
Keyword(s):  
Maximum Likelihood ◽  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Cost Function ◽  
Ensemble Data Assimilation ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Ensemble Data ◽  
Analysis Error ◽  
Nonlinear Observation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Maximum Likelihood Ensemble Filter

Abstract A new ensemble-based data assimilation method, named the maximum likelihood ensemble filter (MLEF), is presented. The analysis solution maximizes the likelihood of the posterior probability distribution, obtained by minimization of a cost function that depends on a general nonlinear observation operator. The MLEF belongs to the class of deterministic ensemble filters, since no perturbed observations are employed. As in variational and ensemble data assimilation methods, the cost function is derived using a Gaussian probability density function framework. Like other ensemble data assimilation algorithms, the MLEF produces an estimate of the analysis uncertainty (e.g., analysis error covariance). In addition to the common use of ensembles in calculation of the forecast error covariance, the ensembles in MLEF are exploited to efficiently calculate the Hessian preconditioning and the gradient of the cost function. A sufficient number of iterative minimization steps is 2–3, because of superior Hessian preconditioning. The MLEF method is well suited for use with highly nonlinear observation operators, for a small additional computational cost of minimization. The consistent treatment of nonlinear observation operators through optimization is an advantage of the MLEF over other ensemble data assimilation algorithms. The cost of MLEF is comparable to the cost of existing ensemble Kalman filter algorithms. The method is directly applicable to most complex forecast models and observation operators. In this paper, the MLEF method is applied to data assimilation with the one-dimensional Korteweg–de Vries–Burgers equation. The tested observation operator is quadratic, in order to make the assimilation problem more challenging. The results illustrate the stability of the MLEF performance, as well as the benefit of the cost function minimization. The improvement is noted in terms of the rms error, as well as the analysis error covariance. The statistics of innovation vectors (observation minus forecast) also indicate a stable performance of the MLEF algorithm. Additional experiments suggest the amplified benefit of targeted observations in ensemble data assimilation.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Adaptive Observing Guidance for Atlantic Tropical Cyclones

2007 ◽  
Vol 135 (12) ◽  
pp. 4006-4029 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Reynolds ◽  
M. S. Peng ◽  
S. J. Majumdar ◽  
S. D. Aberson ◽  
C. H. Bishop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Total Energy ◽  
Tropical Cyclones ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Naval Research ◽  
Error Statistics ◽  
Background Error ◽  
Analysis Error ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Perturbation Growth

Abstract Adaptive observing guidance products for Atlantic tropical cyclones are compared using composite techniques that allow one to quantitatively examine differences in the spatial structures of the guidance maps and relate these differences to the constraints and approximations of the respective techniques. The guidance maps are produced using the ensemble transform Kalman filter (ETKF) based on ensembles from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and total-energy singular vectors (TESVs) produced by ECMWF and the Naval Research Laboratory. Systematic structural differences in the guidance products are linked to the fact that TESVs consider the dynamics of perturbation growth only, while the ETKF combines information on perturbation evolution with error statistics from an ensemble-based data assimilation scheme. The impact of constraining the SVs using different estimates of analysis error variance instead of a total-energy norm, in effect bringing the two methods closer together, is also assessed. When the targets are close to the storm, the TESV products are a maximum in an annulus around the storm, whereas the ETKF products are a maximum at the storm location itself. When the targets are remote from the storm, the TESVs almost always indicate targets northwest of the storm, whereas the ETKF targets are more scattered relative to the storm location and often occur over the northern North Atlantic. The ETKF guidance often coincides with locations in which the ensemble-based analysis error variance is large. As the TESV method is not designed to consider spatial differences in the likely analysis errors, it will produce targets over well-observed regions, such as the continental United States. Constraining the SV calculation using analysis error variance values from an operational 3D variational data assimilation system (with stationary, quasi-isotropic background error statistics) results in a modest modulation of the target areas away from the well-observed regions, and a modest reduction of perturbation growth. Constraining the SVs using the ETKF estimate of analysis error variance produces SV targets similar to ETKF targets and results in a significant reduction in perturbation growth, due to the highly localized nature of the analysis error variance estimates. These results illustrate the strong sensitivity of SVs to the norm (and to the analysis error variance estimate used to define it) and confirm that discrepancies between target areas computed using different methods reflect the mathematical and physical differences between the methods themselves.

scholarly journals EnKF and 4D-Var data assimilation with chemical transport model BASCOE (version 05.06)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2893-2908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Skachko ◽  
Richard Ménard ◽  
Quentin Errera ◽  
Yves Christophe ◽  
Simon Chabrillat
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Transport Model ◽  
Chemical Transport ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Model Error ◽  
Chemical Processes ◽  
Observation Error ◽  
Chemical Transport Model ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Chemical Tracer

Abstract. We compare two optimized chemical data assimilation systems, one based on the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and the other based on four-dimensional variational (4D-Var) data assimilation, using a comprehensive stratospheric chemistry transport model (CTM). This work is an extension of the Belgian Assimilation System for Chemical ObsErvations (BASCOE), initially designed to work with a 4D-Var data assimilation. A strict comparison of both methods in the case of chemical tracer transport was done in a previous study and indicated that both methods provide essentially similar results. In the present work, we assimilate observations of ozone, HCl, HNO3, H2O and N2O from EOS Aura-MLS data into the BASCOE CTM with a full description of stratospheric chemistry. Two new issues related to the use of the full chemistry model with EnKF are taken into account. One issue is a large number of error variance parameters that need to be optimized. We estimate an observation error variance parameter as a function of pressure level for each observed species using the Desroziers method. For comparison purposes, we apply the same estimate procedure in the 4D-Var data assimilation, where both scale factors of the background and observation error covariance matrices are estimated using the Desroziers method. However, in EnKF the background error covariance is modelled using the full chemistry model and a model error term which is tuned using an adjustable parameter. We found that it is adequate to have the same value of this parameter based on the chemical tracer formulation that is applied for all observed species. This is an indication that the main source of model error in chemical transport model is due to the transport. The second issue in EnKF with comprehensive atmospheric chemistry models is the noise in the cross-covariance between species that occurs when species are weakly chemically related at the same location. These errors need to be filtered out in addition to a localization based on distance. The performance of two data assimilation methods was assessed through an 8-month long assimilation of limb sounding observations from EOS Aura MLS. This paper discusses the differences in results and their relation to stratospheric chemical processes. Generally speaking, EnKF and 4D-Var provide results of comparable quality but differ substantially in the presence of model error or observation biases. If the erroneous chemical modelling is associated with moderately fast chemical processes, but whose lifetimes are longer than the model time step, then EnKF performs better, while 4D-Var develops spurious increments in the chemically related species. If, however, the observation biases are significant, then 4D-Var is more robust and is able to reject erroneous observations while EnKF does not.

scholarly journals Assimilation of Stratospheric Temperature and Ozone with an Ensemble Kalman Filter in a Chemistry–Climate Model

2011 ◽  
Vol 139 (11) ◽  
pp. 3389-3404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Milewski ◽  
Michel S. Bourqui
Keyword(s):  
Kalman Filter ◽  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Covariance Matrix ◽  
Ensemble Kalman Filter ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Observation Error ◽  
Background Error ◽  
Error Covariance Matrix ◽  
Error Covariance ◽  
Analysis Error

Abstract A new stratospheric chemical–dynamical data assimilation system was developed, based upon an ensemble Kalman filter coupled with a Chemistry–Climate Model [i.e., the intermediate-complexity general circulation model Fast Stratospheric Ozone Chemistry (IGCM-FASTOC)], with the aim to explore the potential of chemical–dynamical coupling in stratospheric data assimilation. The system is introduced here in a context of a perfect-model, Observing System Simulation Experiment. The system is found to be sensitive to localization parameters, and in the case of temperature (ozone), assimilation yields its best performance with horizontal and vertical decorrelation lengths of 14 000 km (5600 km) and 70 km (14 km). With these localization parameters, the observation space background-error covariance matrix is underinflated by only 5.9% (overinflated by 2.1%) and the observation-error covariance matrix by only 1.6% (0.5%), which makes artificial inflation unnecessary. Using optimal localization parameters, the skills of the system in constraining the ensemble-average analysis error with respect to the true state is tested when assimilating synthetic Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) retrievals of temperature alone and ozone alone. It is found that in most cases background-error covariances produced from ensemble statistics are able to usefully propagate information from the observed variable to other ones. Chemical–dynamical covariances, and in particular ozone–wind covariances, are essential in constraining the dynamical fields when assimilating ozone only, as the radiation in the stratosphere is too slow to transfer ozone analysis increments to the temperature field over the 24-h forecast window. Conversely, when assimilating temperature, the chemical–dynamical covariances are also found to help constrain the ozone field, though to a much lower extent. The uncertainty in forecast/analysis, as defined by the variability in the ensemble, is large compared to the analysis error, which likely indicates some amount of noise in the covariance terms, while also reducing the risk of filter divergence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document