2020
DOI: 10.1002/qj.3741
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of using reconditioned correlated observation‐error covariance matrices in the Met Office 1D‐Var system

Abstract: Recent developments in numerical weather prediction have led to the use of correlated observation-error covariance (OEC) information in data assimilation and forecasting systems. However, diagnosed OEC matrices are often ill-conditioned and may cause convergence problems for variational data assimilation procedures. Reconditioning methods are used to improve the conditioning of covariance matrices while retaining correlation information. In this article, we study the impact of using the "ridge regression" meth… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the 4D‐Var problem the generalized observation operator H^ also accounts for model evolution, and hence the structure of the linearized model is also expected to be important when considering clustering and convergence of a conjugate gradient problem. Previous work has also shown that for the unpreconditioned problem, the qualitative behavior of an operational system 25 largely followed the linear theory 27 . Similarly, for the case of uncorrelated OEC matrices, the behavior of preconditioned 4D‐Var experiments broadly coincided with theory from the linear setting 14,26 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 62%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the 4D‐Var problem the generalized observation operator H^ also accounts for model evolution, and hence the structure of the linearized model is also expected to be important when considering clustering and convergence of a conjugate gradient problem. Previous work has also shown that for the unpreconditioned problem, the qualitative behavior of an operational system 25 largely followed the linear theory 27 . Similarly, for the case of uncorrelated OEC matrices, the behavior of preconditioned 4D‐Var experiments broadly coincided with theory from the linear setting 14,26 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Correlated OEC matrices also lead to greater information content of observations, particularly on smaller scales 19,21‐23 . However, the move from uncorrelated (diagonal) to correlated (full) covariance matrices has caused problems with the convergence of the data assimilation procedure in experiments at NWP centers 17,24,25 . Previous studies of the conditioning of the preconditioned Hessian have focused on the case of uncorrelated OEC matrices 14,26 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Correlated OEC matrices also lead to greater information content of observations, particularly on smaller scales 12,38,41,42 . However, the move from uncorrelated (diagonal) to correlated (full) covariance matrices, has been shown to cause problems with the convergence of the data assimilation procedure in experiments at NWP centres 44,51,52 . Previous studies of the conditioning of the preconditioned Hessian have focussed on the case of uncorrelated OEC matrices 18,19 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This reduction is due to the fact that the diagonal matrix is pulling much closer to the observations than the correlated matrix, which makes it harder to find a solution resulting in slower convergence. This increase of the convergence speed was encountered in the Met Office 1D-Var system (Tabeart et al, 2020a) where a correlated observation matrix was introduced in the system. Furthermore, in Tabeart et al (2018) the matrix R and the observation error variance appear in the expression of the condition number of the Hessian of the variational assimilation problem, indicating that these terms are important for convergence of the minimization function.…”
Section: Computational Costmentioning
confidence: 97%