4.6 Article

Estimation of Systematic Errors in the GFS Using Analysis Increments

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 123, 期 3, 页码 1626-1637

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2017JD027423

关键词

bias correction; data assimilation; systematic errors; model bias; online correction; weather forecasting

资金

  1. NOAA [NA16NWS46800009]
  2. Indian Monsoon Mission [MMSERPUnivMarylandUSA-2013 INT5002150]
  3. National Science Foundation Physical Oceanography Program [OCE1233942]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We estimate the effect of model deficiencies in the Global Forecast System that lead to systematic forecast errors, as a first step toward correcting them online (i.e., within the model) as in Danforth & Kalnay (2008a, 2008b). Since the analysis increments represent the corrections that new observations make on the 6h forecast in the analysis cycle, we estimate the model bias corrections from the time average of the analysis increments divided by 6h, assuming that initial model errors grow linearly and first ignoring the impact of observation bias. During 2012-2016, seasonal means of the 6h model bias are generally robust despite changes in model resolution and data assimilation systems, and their broad continental scales explain their insensitivity to model resolution. The daily bias dominates the submonthly analysis increments and consists primarily of diurnal and semidiurnal components, also requiring a low dimensional correction. Analysis increments in 2015 and 2016 are reduced over oceans, which we attribute to improvements in the specification of the sea surface temperatures. These results provide support for future efforts to make online correction of the mean, seasonal, and diurnal and semidiurnal model biases of Global Forecast System to reduce both systematic and random errors, as suggested by Danforth & Kalnay (2008a, 2008b). It also raises the possibility that analysis increments could be used to provide guidance in testing new physical parameterizations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据