Assimilation of Stratospheric Temperature and Ozone with an Ensemble Kalman Filter in a Chemistry–Climate Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new stratospheric chemical–dynamical data assimilation system was developed, based upon an ensemble Kalman filter coupled with a Chemistry–Climate Model [i.e., the intermediate-complexity general circulation model Fast Stratospheric Ozone Chemistry (IGCM-FASTOC)], with the aim to explore the potential of chemical–dynamical coupling in stratospheric data assimilation. The system is introduced here in a context of a perfect-model, Observing System Simulation Experiment. The system is found to be sensitive to localization parameters, and in the case of temperature (ozone), assimilation yields its best performance with horizontal and vertical decorrelation lengths of 14 000 km (5600 km) and 70 km (14 km). With these localization parameters, the observation space background-error covariance matrix is underinflated by only 5.9% (overinflated by 2.1%) and the observation-error covariance matrix by only 1.6% (0.5%), which makes artificial inflation unnecessary. Using optimal localization parameters, the skills of the system in constraining the ensemble-average analysis error with respect to the true state is tested when assimilating synthetic Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) retrievals of temperature alone and ozone alone. It is found that in most cases background-error covariances produced from ensemble statistics are able to usefully propagate information from the observed variable to other ones. Chemical–dynamical covariances, and in particular ozone–wind covariances, are essential in constraining the dynamical fields when assimilating ozone only, as the radiation in the stratosphere is too slow to transfer ozone analysis increments to the temperature field over the 24-h forecast window. Conversely, when assimilating temperature, the chemical–dynamical covariances are also found to help constrain the ozone field, though to a much lower extent. The uncertainty in forecast/analysis, as defined by the variability in the ensemble, is large compared to the analysis error, which likely indicates some amount of noise in the covariance terms, while also reducing the risk of filter divergence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".