MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074925420 · doi:10.3137/ao.400404

Use of adjoint sensitivity analysis to diagnose the CMC global analysis performance: A case study

2002· article· en· W2074925420 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stéphane Laroche, Monique Tanguay, Ayrton Zadra, Josée Morneau

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopotential heightData assimilationMeteorologyTangentEnvironmental scienceNumerical weather predictionSensitivity (control systems)Variational analysisClimatologyComputer scienceMathematicsApplied mathematicsGeologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The sensitivity of forecast errors to initial conditions obtained from the adjoint of a numerical weather prediction model provides new insights into the analysis errors responsible for poor short‐range to mediumrange forecasts. In recent years, we have developed a sensitivity analysis system based on the tangent linear and adjoint of the Global Environmental Multiscale model, in which an iterative procedure minimizing the shortrange forecast errors leads to the so‐called key analysis errors. These errors are dominated by a small number of atmospheric structures, those growing the most rapidly. The algorithm has proven very useful in understanding improvements to the three‐dimensional variational data assimilation (3D‐Var) system implemented in the Canadian Meteorological Centre operational suite in December 2001. The main difference between the old and the new 3D‐Var systems is the assimilation of temperature and surface pressure from surface and upper air stations as opposed to geopotential heights, additional Tiros Operational Vertical Sounder channels, new sources of observations such as temperature observations from aircraft, and wind and temperature from dropsondes. In this paper, we examine key analysis errors of the old 3D‐Var analysis, which led to a very poor 3‐day forecast of a severe winter storm that struck eastern Canada on 10 February 2001. In this case, the same 3‐day forecast from the new 3D‐Var analysis is much better. We compare the difference between the two 3D‐Var analyses and the key analysis errors. We find that the main key analysis errors, in terms of potential vorticity, is located along the west shore of southern California and is characterized by a strong baroclinic structure that has its maximum amplitude in the upper part of the troposphere. The difference between the two analyses is three times more energetic than the key analysis errors and its structure is much more barotropic in the troposphere. However, we show that the large improvement in the new 3D‐Var analysis stems mainly from the reduction of the analysis errors that project onto the key analysis structures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207