MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023705192 · doi:10.1175/2010mwr3296.1

Sensitivity of Global Ensemble Forecasts to the Initial Ensemble Mean and Perturbations: Comparison of EnKF, Singular Vector, and 4D-Var Approaches

2010· article· en· W2023705192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Buehner, A. Mahidjiba

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnsemble Kalman filterData assimilationEnsemble forecastingClimatologyForecast skillEnsemble averageNorthern HemisphereNumerical weather predictionMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsKalman filterPhysicsGeologyExtended Kalman filter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines the sensitivity of global ensemble forecasts to the use of different approaches for specifying both the initial ensemble mean and perturbations. The current operational ensemble prediction system of the Meteorological Service of Canada uses the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) to define both the ensemble mean and perturbations. To evaluate the impact of different approaches for obtaining the initial ensemble perturbations, the operational EnKF approach is compared with using either no initial perturbations or perturbations obtained using singular vectors (SVs). The SVs are computed using the (dry) total-energy norm with a 48-h optimization time interval. Random linear combinations of 60 SVs are computed for each of three regions. Next, the impact of replacing the initial ensemble mean, currently the EnKF ensemble mean analysis, with the higher-resolution operational four-dimensional variational data assimilation (4D-Var) analysis is evaluated. For this comparison, perturbations are provided by the EnKF. All experiments are performed over two-month periods during both the boreal summer and winter using a system very similar to the global ensemble prediction system that became operational on 10 July 2007. Relative to the operational configuration that relies on the EnKF, the use of SVs to compute initial perturbations produces small, but statistically significant differences in probabilistic forecast scores in favor of the EnKF both in the tropics and, for a limited set of forecast lead times, in the summer hemisphere extratropics, whereas the results are very similar in the winter hemisphere extratropics. Both approaches lead to significantly better ensemble forecasts than with no initial perturbations, though results are quite similar in the tropics when using SVs and no perturbations. The use of an initial-time norm that does not include information on analysis uncertainty and the lack of linearized moist processes in the calculation of the SVs are two factors that limit the quality of the resulting SV-based ensemble forecasts. Relative to the operational configuration, use of the 4D-Var analysis to specify the initial ensemble mean results in improved probabilistic forecast scores during the boreal summer period in the southern extratropics and tropics, but a near-neutral impact otherwise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather Review→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→