the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simplified Kalman smoother and ensemble Kalman smoother for improving reanalyses
Abstract. The paper presents a simplification to the Kalman smoother that can be run as a post processing step using only minimal stored information from a Kalman filter analysis, which is intended for use with large model products such as reanalyses of Earth system variability. A simple decay assumption is applied to cross time error covariances and we show how the resulting equations relate formally to the fixed-lag Kalman smoother, and how they can be solved to give a smoother analysis along with an uncertainty estimate. The method is demonstrated in the Lorenz 1963 idealised system, being applied with both an extended Kalman smoother and an Ensemble Kalman smoother. In each case the root mean square errors (RMSE) against truth, for both assimilated and unassimilated (independent) data, of the new smoother analyses are substantially smaller than for the original filter analyses, while being larger than for the full smoother solution. Typically 60 % of the full smoother error reduction with respect to the filter, is achieved. The uncertainties derived for the new smoother also agree remarkably well with the actual RMSE values throughout the assimilation period. The ability to run this smoother very efficiently as a post processor should allow it to be useful for real large model reanalysis products, especially ensemble products, that are already being developed by various operational centres.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1548 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1548 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2023
I like this paper. The authors have done a great job at giving a walk through on exactly what is going on in a way that is easy to understand. It goes through each method nicely with no real assumptions made that might make the reader confused.
Major Comments:
NoneMinor Commentss:
Line 19 - A comma after "However" is probably needed here.
Line 59 - A comma after "In addition" is probably right here
Line 59:60 - "that has been developed over thousands of person years" sounds really odd to me.Section 3.1:
a) What is the timestep size? I am guessing it's 0.01 (?), but I think it should be noted.
b) Why did you not observe z? I am curious about why this choice was made instead of observing all variables.Â
c) Why choose x=5 and y=20 to be your observation frequencies?
d) Why retain 5%? I know you said it's to avoid divergence, do you have a citation for this or was it tested by you?
Points b-c are just me curious about why the choices were made. I don't think more experiments are needed, but maybe add something to give context to why you decided on these parameters. Could be easy like refering to papers whose setup you are using, or just a small sentence here and there.Line 183 - I like L=40 is good here, how general do you think that is?
Line 198 - What do you mean by "true RMSE" here? I don't understand what these dotted blue/green uncertainty estimates are in agreement with.
Line 252 - Say what "i" refers to.Â
Line 286 - "Fig. 2, reflecting the improved assimilation approaches." Is this supposed to be a stand alone sentence? It feels like something is missing to make it a complete sentence.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Apr 2023
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Apr 2023
-
CC3: 'Reply on RC3', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC4 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
CC3: 'Reply on RC3', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC2 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-AC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2023
I like this paper. The authors have done a great job at giving a walk through on exactly what is going on in a way that is easy to understand. It goes through each method nicely with no real assumptions made that might make the reader confused.
Major Comments:
NoneMinor Commentss:
Line 19 - A comma after "However" is probably needed here.
Line 59 - A comma after "In addition" is probably right here
Line 59:60 - "that has been developed over thousands of person years" sounds really odd to me.Section 3.1:
a) What is the timestep size? I am guessing it's 0.01 (?), but I think it should be noted.
b) Why did you not observe z? I am curious about why this choice was made instead of observing all variables.Â
c) Why choose x=5 and y=20 to be your observation frequencies?
d) Why retain 5%? I know you said it's to avoid divergence, do you have a citation for this or was it tested by you?
Points b-c are just me curious about why the choices were made. I don't think more experiments are needed, but maybe add something to give context to why you decided on these parameters. Could be easy like refering to papers whose setup you are using, or just a small sentence here and there.Line 183 - I like L=40 is good here, how general do you think that is?
Line 198 - What do you mean by "true RMSE" here? I don't understand what these dotted blue/green uncertainty estimates are in agreement with.
Line 252 - Say what "i" refers to.Â
Line 286 - "Fig. 2, reflecting the improved assimilation approaches." Is this supposed to be a stand alone sentence? It feels like something is missing to make it a complete sentence.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Apr 2023
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-337', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Apr 2023
-
CC3: 'Reply on RC3', keith haines, 04 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC4 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-CC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-337/egusphere-2023-337-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
CC3: 'Reply on RC3', keith haines, 04 May 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bo Dong, 07 May 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC2 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-337-AC1
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
447 | 112 | 30 | 589 | 8 | 5 |
- HTML: 447
- PDF: 112
- XML: 30
- Total: 589
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ross Bannister
Yumeng Chen
Alison Fowler
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1548 KB) - Metadata XML