Development of a Hybrid En3DVar Data Assimilation System and Comparisons with 3DVar and EnKF for Radar Data Assimilation with Observing System Simulation Experiments
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Development of a Hybrid En3DVar Data Assimilation System and Comparisons with 3DVar and EnKF for Radar Data Assimilation with Observing System Simulation Experiments

Filetype[PDF-3.91 MB]


Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Journal Title:
    Monthly Weather Review
  • Personal Author:
  • NOAA Program & Office:
  • Description:
    A hybrid ensemble–3DVar (En3DVar) system is developed and compared with 3DVar, EnKF, “deterministic forecast” EnKF (DfEnKF), and pure En3DVar for assimilating radar data through perfect-model observing system simulation experiments (OSSEs). DfEnKF uses a deterministic forecast as the background and is therefore parallel to pure En3DVar. Different results are found between DfEnKF and pure En3DVar: 1) the serial versus global nature and 2) the variational minimization versus direct filter updating nature of the two algorithms are identified as the main causes for the differences. For 3DVar (EnKF/DfEnKF and En3DVar), optimal decorrelation scales (localization radii) for static (ensemble) background error covariances are obtained and used in hybrid En3DVar. The sensitivity of hybrid En3DVar to covariance weights and ensemble size is examined. On average, when ensemble size is 20 or larger, a 5%–10% static covariance gives the best results, while for smaller ensembles, more static covariance is beneficial. Using an ensemble size of 40, EnKF and DfEnKF perform similarly, and both are better than pure and hybrid En3DVar overall. Using 5% static error covariance, hybrid En3DVar outperforms pure En3DVar for most state variables but underperforms for hydrometeor variables, and the improvement (degradation) is most notable for water vapor mixing ratio qυ (snow mixing ratio qs). Overall, EnKF/DfEnKF performs the best, 3DVar performs the worst, and static covariance only helps slightly via hybrid En3DVar.
  • Keywords:
  • Source:
    Monthly Weather Review, 146(1), 175-198
  • DOI:
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    Grant no. NA160AR4320115
  • Rights Information:
    Other
  • Compliance:
    CHORUS
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.26