the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Observation error estimation in climate proxies with data assimilation and innovation statistics
Abstract. Data assimilation (DA) has been successfully applied in paleoclimate reconstruction. DA combines model simulations and climate proxies based on their error sizes. Therefore, the error information is crucial for DA to work optimally. However, little attention has been paid to the observation errors in the previous studies, especially when the proxies are assimilated directly. This study assessed the feasibility of innovation statistics, a method developed for numerical weather prediction, for estimating observation errors in climate reconstruction and its impact on reconstruction skills. For this purpose, we conducted offline-DA experiments over 1870–2000. Here, we assimilated stable water isotope records from ice cores, tree-ring cellulose, and corals. We found that the innovation statistics-based approach correctly estimated the observation errors, even with the offline-DA scheme. Although the accuracy of the estimation depended on the sample size and accuracy of the prior error covariance, the estimation generally improved the reconstruction skills. The reconstruction skills with the estimated observation errors were comparable to those with errors defined differently. In contrast with those other methods, however, the innovation statistics-based approach offers an objective and systematic way to estimate observation errors with light computational cost. As such, the innovation statistics-based approach should contribute to improving the reconstruction skills and observation networks.
- Preprint
(4479 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1389', Lili Lei, 19 Apr 2025
reply
Summary
This is a very interesting manuscript. The observation error variance is essential for data assimilation, but it is very hard to estimate for paleoclimate data assimilation. This manuscript applies the commonly used methods, especially the Desroziers one, to estimate the error variance for proxies. As expected, the more accurately estimated observation error variances lead to improved climate reconstruction. I have a few comments as below.
- Lines 195-200, it is hard to follow from (18) to (19). How the innovation statistics link to the covariance inflation? Using (17), is the numerator the same as the denominator, which give delta = 1? Moreover, in the following discussions, the role of the inflation, especially the relation with the observation error variance, is not clearly discussed.
- Lines 218-220, do you mean 136 annual mean simulations are used as ensemble priors? Are the simulations or anomalies used?
- Lines 246-247, this is unclear. Do you mean the climatological mean is computed as a smoothing averaging with adjacent years? If yes, how many years are used to compute the climatological mean?
- Lines 269-275, till now, it is unclear why ‘BIAS’ is designed?
- Lines 355-360, with too large (small) R, small (large) inflation values are expected. It would be nice to show the estimated inflation given different R.
- Figure 9, please give some potential explanations for the regions with negative skills.
- Lines 414, ‘remarkably’ -> ‘remarkably worse’?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1389-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
96 | 11 | 6 | 113 | 2 | 4 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 11
- XML: 6
- Total: 113
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 42 | 37 |
Japan | 2 | 13 | 11 |
Australia | 3 | 7 | 6 |
China | 4 | 7 | 6 |
France | 5 | 7 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 42