Comparing Two Approaches for Assessing Observation Impact

Langland and Baker introduced an approach to assess the impact of observations on the forecasts. In that approach, a state-space aspect of the forecast is defined and a procedure is derived ultimately relating changes in the aspect with changes in the observing system. Some features of the state-space approach are to be noted: the typical choice of forecast aspect is rather subjective and leads to incomplete assessment of the observing system, it requires availability of a verification state that is in practice correlated with the forecast, and it involves the adjoint operator of the entire data assimilation system and is thus constrained by the validity of this operator. This article revisits the topic of observation impacts from the perspective of estimation theory. An observation-space metric is used to allow inferring observation impact on the forecasts without the limitations just mentioned. Using differences of observation-minus-forecast residuals obtained from consecutive forecasts leads to the following advantages: (i) it suggests a rather natural choice of forecast aspect that directly links to the data assimilation procedure, (ii) it avoids introducing undesirable correlations in the forecast aspect since verification is done against the observations, and (iii) it does not involve linearization and use of adjoints. The observation-space approach has the additional advantage of being nearly cost free and very simple to implement. In its simplest form it reduces to evaluating the statistics of observationminus-background and observation-minus-analysis residuals with traditional methods. Illustrations comparing the approaches are given using the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System.

[1]  J. M. Lewis,et al.  Dynamic Data Assimilation: A Least Squares Approach , 2006 .

[2]  Stephen E. Cohn,et al.  An Introduction to Estimation Theory (gtSpecial IssueltData Assimilation in Meteology and Oceanography: Theory and Practice) , 1997 .

[3]  P. Courtier,et al.  Variational Assimilation of Meteorological Observations With the Adjoint Vorticity Equation. Ii: Numerical Results , 2007 .

[4]  R. Todling,et al.  General characteristics of stratospheric singular vectors , 2007 .

[5]  J. M. Lewis,et al.  Vapor flux associated with return flow over the Gulf of Mexico: a sensitivity study using adjoint modeling , 2001 .

[6]  R. Purser,et al.  Three-Dimensional Variational Analysis with Spatially Inhomogeneous Covariances , 2002 .

[7]  Dick Dee,et al.  Maximum-Likelihood Estimation of Forecast and Observation Error Covariance Parameters. Part I: Methodology , 1999 .

[8]  Thomas Kaminski,et al.  Tangent Linear and Adjoint Versions of NASA/GMAO’s Fortran 90 Global Weather Forecast Model , 2006 .

[9]  John Derber,et al.  The Use of TOVS Cloud-Cleared Radiances in the NCEP SSI Analysis System , 1998 .

[10]  Ricardo Todling,et al.  A fixed-lag Kalman smoother for retrospective data assimilation , 1994 .

[11]  L. Cucurull Improvement in the Use of an Operational Constellation of GPS Radio Occultation Receivers in Weather Forecasting , 2010 .

[12]  Ricardo Todling,et al.  The THORPEX Observation Impact Intercomparison Experiment , 2010 .

[13]  Peter M. Lyster,et al.  Assimilation of Stratospheric Chemical Tracer Observations Using a Kalman Filter. Part I: Formulation , 2000 .

[14]  S. Cohn,et al.  An Introduction to Estimation Theory , 1997 .

[15]  Rolf H. Langland,et al.  Observation Impact during the North Atlantic TReC—2003 , 2005 .

[16]  John Derber,et al.  Atmospheric transmittance of an absorbing gas. 6. OPTRAN status report and introduction to the NESDIS/NCEP community radiative transfer model. , 2004, Applied optics.

[17]  S. Cohn,et al.  Assessing the Effects of Data Selection with the DAO Physical-Space Statistical Analysis System* , 1998 .

[18]  Dick Dee,et al.  Ooce Note Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation Maximum-likelihood Estimation of Forecast and Observation Error Covariance Parameters , 2022 .

[19]  Paul Poli,et al.  Diagnosis of observation, background and analysis‐error statistics in observation space , 2005 .

[20]  Jean-Noël Thépaut,et al.  The value of observations. III: Influence of weather regimes on targeting , 2007 .

[21]  R. Daley The Lagged Innovation Covariance: A Performance Diagnostic for Atmospheric Data Assimilation , 1992 .

[22]  Ricardo Todling,et al.  The GEOS-5 Data Assimilation System-Documentation of Versions 5.0.1, 5.1.0, and 5.2.0 , 2008 .

[23]  Gérald Desroziers,et al.  Use of randomization to diagnose the impact of observations on analyses and forecasts , 2005 .

[24]  Shian‐Jiann Lin A “Vertically Lagrangian” Finite-Volume Dynamical Core for Global Models , 2004 .

[25]  S. Moorthi,et al.  Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert - A parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models , 1992 .

[26]  E. Kalnay,et al.  Estimating observation impact without adjoint model in an ensemble Kalman filter , 2008 .

[27]  Lawrence L. Takacs,et al.  Data Assimilation Using Incremental Analysis Updates , 1996 .

[28]  Yannick Trémolet,et al.  Computation of observation sensitivity and observation impact in incremental variational data assimilation , 2008 .

[29]  R. Todling An Approach to Assess Observation Impact Based on Observation-Minus-Forecast Residuals , 2009 .

[30]  Stéphane Laroche,et al.  Evaluation of the Impact of Observations on Analyses in 3D- and 4D-Var Based on Information Content , 2011 .

[31]  A. Jazwinski Stochastic Processes and Filtering Theory , 1970 .

[32]  R. Koster,et al.  A catchment-based approach to modeling land surface processes in a general circulation model , 2000 .

[33]  O. Talagrand,et al.  Diagnosis and tuning of observational error in a quasi‐operational data assimilation setting , 2006 .

[34]  R. Errico Interpretations of an adjoint-derived observational impact measure , 2007 .

[35]  J. Barkmeijer,et al.  Optimal linearization trajectories for tangent linear models , 2012 .

[36]  B. Anderson,et al.  Optimal Filtering , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[37]  Martin Ehrendorfer,et al.  A review of issues in ensemble-based Kalman filtering , 2007 .

[38]  Takemasa Miyoshi,et al.  Analysis sensitivity calculation in an ensemble Kalman filter , 2009 .

[39]  John Derber,et al.  A Global Oceanic Data Assimilation System , 1989 .

[40]  Jean-Noël Thépaut,et al.  The value of observations. II: The value of observations located in singular‐vector‐based target areas , 2007 .

[41]  R. Errico,et al.  Examination of various-order adjoint-based approximations of observation impact , 2007 .

[42]  T. Kailath,et al.  An innovations approach to least-squares estimation--Part II: Linear smoothing in additive white noise , 1968 .

[43]  Rolf H. Langland,et al.  Estimation of observation impact using the NRL atmospheric variational data assimilation adjoint system , 2004 .

[44]  Florence Rabier,et al.  An update on THORPEX-related research in data assimilation and observing strategies , 2008 .

[45]  Max J. Suarez,et al.  The Impact of Detailed Snow Physics on the Simulation of Snow Cover and Subsurface Thermodynamics at Continental Scales , 2001 .

[46]  P. Courtier,et al.  Variational Assimilation of Meteorological Observations With the Adjoint Vorticity Equation. I: Theory , 2007 .

[47]  Jean-Noël Thépaut,et al.  The value of observations. I: Data denial experiments for the Atlantic and the Pacific , 2007 .

[48]  R. Todling,et al.  Adjoint Estimation of the Variation in Model Functional Output due to the Assimilation of Data , 2009 .

[49]  R. Gelaro,et al.  Observation Sensitivity Calculations Using the Adjoint of the Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) Analysis System , 2008 .

[50]  P. Courtier,et al.  A strategy for operational implementation of 4D‐Var, using an incremental approach , 1994 .

[51]  Cecelia DeLuca,et al.  Design and Implementation of Components in the Earth System Modeling Framework , 2005, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[52]  A. Hollingsworth,et al.  The verification of objective analyses: Diagnostics of analysis system performance , 1989 .

[53]  Ronald Gelaro,et al.  Examination of observation impacts derived from observing system experiments (OSEs) and adjoint models , 2009 .