A Comparison of the Hybrid and EnSRF Analysis Schemes in the Presence of Model Errors due to Unresolved Scales

A hybrid analysis scheme is compared with an ensemble square root filter (EnSRF) analysis scheme in the presence of model errors as a follow-up to a previous perfect-model comparison. In the hybrid scheme, the ensemble perturbations are updated by the ensemble transform Kalman filter (ETKF) and the ensemble mean is updated with a hybrid ensemble and static background-error covariance. The experiments were conducted with a two-layer primitive equation model. The true state was a T127 simulation. Data assimilation experiments were conducted at T31 resolution (3168 complex spectral coefficients), assimilating imperfect observations drawn from the T127 nature run. By design, the magnitude of the truncation error was large, which provided a test on the ability of both schemes to deal with model error. Additive noise was used to parameterize model errors in the background ensemble for both schemes. In the first set of experiments, additive noise was drawn from a large inventory of historical forecast errors; in the second set of experiments, additive noise was drawn from a large inventory of differences between forecasts and analyses. The static covariance was computed correspondingly from the two inventories. The hybrid analysis was statistically significantly more accurate than the EnSRF analysis. The improvement of the hybrid over the EnSRF was smaller when differences of forecasts and analyses were used to form the random noise and the static covariance. The EnSRF analysis was more sensitive to the size of the ensemble than the hybrid. Aseries of tests was conducted to understand why the EnSRF performed worse than the hybrid. It was shown that the inferior performance of the EnSRF was likely due to the sampling error in the estimation of the model-error covariance in the mean update and the less-balanced EnSRF initial conditions resulting from the extra localizations used in the EnSRF.