4.6 Article

Representativity error for temperature and humidity using the Met Office high-resolution model

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 140, Issue 681, Pages 1189-1197

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2207

Keywords

data assimilation; correlated observation error; forward model error

Funding

  1. NERC as part of the National Centre for Earth Observation
  2. Met Office through a CASE studentship
  3. NERC [earth010008, NE/K008900/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [earth010008, NE/K008900/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The observation-error covariance matrix used in data assimilation contains contributions from instrument errors, representativity errors and errors introduced by the approximated observation operator. Forward model errors arise when the observation operator does not correctly model the observations or when observations can resolve spatial scales that the model cannot. Previous work to estimate the observation-error covariance matrix for particular observing instruments has shown that it contains significant correlations. In particular, correlations for humidity data are more significant than those for temperature. However it is not known what proportion of these correlations can be attributed to the representativity errors. In this article we apply an existing method for calculating representativity error, previously applied to an idealised system, to NWP data. We calculate horizontal errors of representativity for temperature and humidity using data from the Met Office high-resolution UK variable resolution model. Our results show that errors of representativity are correlated and more significant for specific humidity than temperature. We also find that representativity error varies with height. This suggests that the assimilation scheme may be improved if these errors are explicitly included in a data assimilation scheme.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available