Journal of Meteorological Research

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1123–1132 | Cite as

Evaluation of the impact of observations on blended sea surface winds in a two-dimensional variational scheme using degrees of freedom

  • Ting Wang
  • Jie Xiang
  • Jianfang Fei
  • Yi Wang
  • Chunxia Liu
  • Yuanxiang Li
Regular Articles
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of the observational impacts on blended sea surface winds from a two-dimensional variational data assimilation (2D-Var) scheme. We begin by briefly introducing the analysis sensitivity with respect to observations in variational data assimilation systems and its relationship with the degrees of freedom for signal (DFS), and then the DFS concept is applied to the 2D-Var sea surface wind blending scheme. Two methods, a priori and a posteriori, are used to estimate the DFS of the zonal (u) and meridional (v) components of winds in the 2D-Var blending scheme. The a posteriori method can obtain almost the same results as the a priori method. Because only by-products of the blending scheme are used for the a posteriori method, the computation time is reduced significantly. The magnitude of the DFS is critically related to the observational and background error statistics. Changing the observational and background error variances can affect the DFS value. Because the observation error variances are assumed to be uniform, the observational influence at each observational location is related to the background error variance, and the observations located at the place where there are larger background error variances have larger influences. The average observational influence of u and v with respect to the analysis is about 40%, implying that the background influence with respect to the analysis is about 60%.

Keywords

sea surface wind blending sensitivity observational influence degrees of freedom for signal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers, whose comments were helpful and greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Bai, Z. J., M. Fahey, and G. Golub, 1996: Some large-scale matrix computation problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 74, 71–89, doi: 10.1016/0377-0427(96)00018-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boullot, N., F. Rabier, R. Langland, et al., 2016: Observation impact over the southern polar area during the Concordiasi field campaign. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 597–610, doi: 10.1002/qj.2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brousseau, P., G. Desroziers, F. Bouttier, et al., 2014: A posteriori diagnostics of the impact of observations on the AROMEFrance convective-scale data assimilation system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 982–994, doi: 10.1002/qj.2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao, X. Q., S. X. Huang, W. M. Zhang, et al., 2008: Modeling background error covariance in regional 3D-VAR. Scient. Meteor. Sin., 28, 8–14. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. Cardinali, C., and S. Healy, 2014: Impact of GPS radio occultation measurements in the ECMWF system using adjointbased diagnostics. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 2315–2320, doi: 10.1002/qj.2300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardinali, C., S. Pezzulli, and E. Andersson, 2004: Influence-matrix diagnostic of a data assimilation system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 130, 2767–2786, doi: 10.1256/qj.03.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapnik, B., G. Desroziers, F. Rabier, et al., 2006: Diagnosis and tuning of observational error in a quasi-operational data assimilation setting. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 543–565, doi: 10.1256/qj.04.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daescu, D. N., and R. H. Langland, 2013: Error covariance sensitivity and impact estimation with adjoint 4D-Var: Theoretical aspects and first applications to NAVDAS-AR. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 226–241, doi: 10.1002/qj.1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desroziers, G., and S. Ivanov, 2001: Diagnosis and adaptive tuning of observation-error parameters in a variational assimilation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 1433–1452, doi: 10.1002/qj.49712757417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du, H. D., S. X. Huang, H. X. Fang, et al., 2010: Study of the information content contained in remote sensing data of atmosphere. Acta Phys. Sin., 59, 683–691. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, M., 2003: Estimation of Entropy Reduction and Degrees of Freedom for Signal for Large Variational Analysis Systems. Technical Memorandum No 397, Reading, UK, Research Department, ECMWF, 18 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Hoaglin, D. C., and R. E. Welsch, 1978: The hat matrix in regression and ANOVA. Am. Stat., 32, 17–22.Google Scholar
  13. Lorenc, A. C., and R. T. Marriott, 2014: Forecast sensitivity to observations in the Met Office lobal numerical weather prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 209–224, doi: 10.1002/qj.2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lorenc, A. C., S. P. Balland, R. S. Bell, et al., 2000: The Met. Office global three-dimensional variational data assimilation scheme. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 2991–3012, doi: 10.1002/qj.49712657002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lupu, C., P. Gauthier, and S. Laroche, 2011: Evaluation of the impact of observations on analyses in 3D- and 4D-Var based on information content. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 726–737, doi: 10.1175/2010MWR3404.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lupu, C., P. Gauthier, and S. Laroche, 2012: Assessment of the impact of observations on analyses derived from observing system experiments. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 245–257, doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-10-05010.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parrish, D. F., and J. C. Derber, 1992: The National Meteorological Center’s spectral statistical-interpolation analysis system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 1747–1763, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120<1747:TNMCSS>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rabier, F., 2005: Overview of global data assimilation developments in numerical weather-prediction centres. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 3215–3233, doi: 10.1256/qj.05.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodgers, C. D., 2000: Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice. World Scientific, Singapore, 238 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turner, D. D., and U. Löhnert, 2014: Information content and uncertainties in thermodynamic profiles and liquid cloud properties retrieved from the ground-based atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer (AERI). J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 53, 752–771, doi: 10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0126.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Xiang, J., H. P. Wang, C. M. Wang, et al., 2015: Preliminary study on variational blending of surface vector winds in South China Sea. J. Trop. Meteor., 31, 153–160. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Meteorological Society and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ting Wang
    • 1
  • Jie Xiang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianfang Fei
    • 1
  • Yi Wang
    • 1
  • Chunxia Liu
    • 3
  • Yuanxiang Li
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Meteorology and OceanographyNational University of Defense TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Mesoscale Severe Weather of Ministry of EducationNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Guangdong Institute of Tropical and Marine Meteorology of China Meteorological AdministrationGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.School of Aeronautics and AstronauticsShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations