Sensitivity of retrieved atmospheric profiles from infrared radiances to physical and statistical parameters of the data assimilation system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The direct assimilation of satellite radiances is now operational in a few forecast centres, providing global temperature (T) and moisture (Q) information. The critical parameters which influence the quality of the resulting analysis are mainly the selection of channels, the respective errors of the background field and radiance observations, and the quality of the radiative transfer model. These various aspects are studied from sensitivity experiments based on 1‐D variational assimilations using the ensemble of 19 infrared channels (HIRS) of the NOAA‐14 satellite. It is shown that significant improvements in the retrievals would be obtained if the radiance observation error (measurement plus radiative transfer), currently estimated to be about equal to that of the background (in radiance units), were decreased. This could in principle be achieved by improving the forward radiative transfer model (RTM). Two RTMs suitable for radiance assimilation are compared in terms of analyzed increments, Jacobians, brightness temperature and equivalent background error. Important differences are noted for all of these interrelated measures. The existence of air‐mass dependent biases of fast radiative transfer models of the order of 1.5 K is confirmed in several channels from additional comparison with a line‐by‐line model. The importance of correctly specifying surface emissivity and the effective angle for downward calculations is demonstrated. The paper also evaluates, in some detail, the impact of uncertainties on the background error covariance matrix. The uncertainty on the skin temperature (TJ error affects mostly the retrieval of that parameter; it has a modest impact on the T and Q profiles in the low troposphere. The uncertainty on the Q‐Q elements has more impact than that on the T‐T elements. Off‐diagonal elements of the background error covariance matrix are very important as they impose smoothness and level‐to‐level consistency, especially for Q retrievals. Finally, Ts‐T correlations, often ignored, could result in significant improvements in the retrieval of temperature at low levels. Research issues are discussed in the conclusion.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".