1 / 35

Budgets and Bias in Data Assimilation Keith Haines, ESSC&DARC, Reading

Budgets and Bias in Data Assimilation Keith Haines, ESSC&DARC, Reading. Background: Marine Informatics Assimilation algorithms in Ocean circulation models Satellite and In Situ data sets Physically based covariances + simple errors in big and Biased models

robertsnyder
Download Presentation

Budgets and Bias in Data Assimilation Keith Haines, ESSC&DARC, Reading

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Budgets and Bias in Data Assimilation Keith Haines, ESSC&DARC, Reading • Background: Marine Informatics • Assimilation algorithms in Ocean circulation models • Satellite and In Situ data sets • Physically based covariances + simple errors in big and Biased models • Budget diagnostics based on assimilation • Met Office FOAM, ECMWF Seasonal Forecasting collaborations • DARC-NCOF Fellow Dan Lea based in NCOF group at Met Office • New project (Marine Quest) will look at assimilation constraints on Carbon within a coupled physics-biochemistry ocean model • e-Science/Grid: Model and Satellite data viewed in Google Maps/Earth • http://lovejoy.nerc-essc.ac.uk:8080/Godiva2 Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  2. Budgets and Ocean Thermohaline Circulation Ocean Box-Inverse solution Ganachaud and Wunsch (2000) After Broeker • Closed Budgets of .. • Heat, Salt, Mass/Volume, Tracers.. • Processes: Advection, Surface fluxes, Mixing, Data Assimilation Transport in Sverdrups 1Sv = 106 m3 s-1 Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  3. Ocean Box-Inverse Assimilation • Key assumption is for Steady State system • Therefore can use asynoptic data (different ocean sections observed at completely different times) • Try to correct for known variability eg. Seasonal cycle (surface properties and wind induced transports) • Deduce unknown box-exchanges (circulation and mixing rates) for closed system • Often problem underconstrained => use some Occams razor or conditioning assumption (smallest consistent flows/mixing rates) Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  4. Transport in Sverdrups 1Sv = 106 m3 s-1 Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  5. N. Atlantic Water Budgetby density class (11S-80N) 27.72 28.11 COADS surface fluxes CTD section at 11S Steady State (cf. Ocean Inverse) => Mixing Transformation Flux (Sv) Speer (1997) Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  6. Walin Budget diagnostics for HadCM3 climate model (100yr average) Transformation Flux (Sv) 27.72 28.11 Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006 Old and Haines 2006

  7. Data Assimilation in a time-evolving model? • Steady state box-inverse models estimate process rates or parametrisations like mixing from a 3D Variational problem • Similar “Parameter Estimation” while matching time–evolving data often uses 4DVar Assimilation • 4DVar very expensive computationally • The “budget within a box” concept is subsumed into seeking a solution to the temporal model equations • Parameter tuning assumes process representations are ‘structurally’ correct • Different approach: Assimilation corrects for model bias so evaluate assimilation as another process within Box Budgets • A posteriori “Process Estimation” Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  8. Process Estimation v. Parameter Estimation Parameter estimation 4DVar. Cost function containing fit to observations, a-priori info. Tune: initial state, sources/sinks, model parameters (diffusion)….. Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  9. Data Assimilation in a time-evolving model? • Steady state box-inverse models estimate process rates or parametrisations like mixing from a 3D Variational problem • Similar “Parameter Estimation” while matching time–evolvingdata often uses 4DVar Assimilation • 4DVar very expensive computationally • The “budget within a box” concept is subsumed into seeking a solution to the temporal model equations • Parameter tuning assumes process representations are ‘structurally’ correct • Different approach: Assimilation corrects for model bias so evaluate assimilation as another process within Box Budgets • A posteriori “Process Estimation” Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  10. OCCAM Assimilation Experiment Sea Level analysis 28th March 1996 RUN1 • 1993-96 • ECMWF 6hr winds • Monthly XBT assim. • 10-day-ly Altimeter assim. • SST weakly relaxed to Reynolds • SSS weakly relaxed to Levitus 1/4° x 36 levels Global Ocean Model Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  11. Process Estimation: Local Heat Budget Wm-2 Assimilation Advection • Bias • Patterns • Amplitudes • Space scales • Transients Trend 1993-96 Surface Flux Mixing Local Trend = Convergence + Assimilation + Surface Flux (+ Mixing) Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006 (Haines; 2003)

  12. Process Estimation: N Atlantic Box Budgets G = Volume Transformation Rate (Sv) (after Walin 1982) Thermodynamically Irreversible Processes -G/  = dV/dt -  G = (1) Surface Forcing, (2) Mixing, (3) Data Assimilation Fox and Haines (2003) JPO 16Sv Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006 Run1

  13. Process Estimation in the Ocean • Locally assimilation corrects for wrong Advection: eg. Gulf stream overshoots, Eastern Pacific thermocline • Basin average sense assimilation corrects for wrong forcing i.e. surface heat flux • Characteristic of certain processes can help to attribute assimilation contributions to box-budgets, eg. • Advection is conservative between regions (no sources or sinks) • Mixing also conservative AND always downgradient Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  14. Relevance to Carbon Budget Modelling and Assimilation? • Budget-box representation of terrestrial ecosystem • Conserved quantities: Carbon, Nitrogen/Nitrates?...... • Understand cycling rates in model control (seasonal etc.. dependencies) • Assimilation will try to constrain Amounts of conserved properties in each box. Unlikely to observe Transformation process rates? • Success of assimilation may depend on; • Frequency of assimilation • Rate at which model transformation processes act • Any feedback between Amounts of property and transformation rates • Generation of unwanted transient processes as model adjusts to new data Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  15. ERSEM - key features Carbon based process model Functional group approach Resolves microbial loop and POM/DOM dynamics Complex suite of nutrients Includes benthic system Explicit decoupled cycling of C, N, P, Si and Chl. Adaptable: DMS, CO2/pH, phytobenthos, HABs. Ecosystem Forcing Atmosphere Cloud Cover O2 DMS CO2 Wind Stress Si Irradiation Phytoplankton N u t r i e n t s Dino-f Pico-f Diatoms NO3 Flagell -ates Heat Flux Particulates CO2 NH4 Physics Bacteria PO4 Dissolved 0D Rivers and boundaries Hetero- trophs Micro- Meso- 1D Consumers Suspension Feeders D e t r i t u s Oxygenated Layer N u t r I e n t s Aerobic Bacteria Meio- benthos Deposit Feeders Redox Discontinuity Layer 3D Anaerobic Bacteria Reduced Layer UK MO GOTM POLCOMS Shelf Seas: Carbon+Biochemistry Modelling Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  16. Bias and Data Assimilation • Assimilation often correcting for Process Biases • In OCCAM model: • Locally assimilation corrects for wrong Advection: eg. mesoscale eddies in the wrong location or biased advection eg. Gulf stream overshoots • Basin average sense assimilation corrects for wrong forcing i.e. surface heat flux • Characteristics of certain processes can help to attribute assimilation contributions to box-budgets, eg. • Advection is conservative between regions (no sources or sinks) • Mixing also conservative AND always downgradient • May try to Account for bias when assimilating data as it should alter the error weighting between model and observations Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  17. Accounting for Bias in Data Assimilation • Dee (2006) Review in QJRMS • Variational formulation easiest to understand (derivable from Bayesian analysis; Drecourt et al; 2006) 2J(x,b,c) = (y-b-x)TR-1(y-b-x) + (x-xf+c)TB-1(x-xf+c) + (b-bf)TO-1(b-bf) + (c-cf)TP-1(c-cf) y =observation R =observation error covariance x =model state B =model background error covariance b =observation bias O =observation bias error covariance c =model forecast bias P =model forecast bias error covariance Superscript f are forecast values Observation operators have been omitted Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  18. Accounting for Bias in Data Assimilation • Solution (Analysed variables a) xa = (xf-cf) + K {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} K = (B+P) [B+P+O+R]-1 ba = bf + F {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} F = O [B+P+O+R]-1 ca = cf + G {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} G = P [B+P+O+R]-1 or xa = (xf-ca) + K1{(y-ba) – (xf-ca)} K1 = B [B+R]-1 y =observation R =observation error covariance x =model state B =model background error covariance b =observation bias O =observation bias error covariance c =model forecast bias P =model forecast bias error covariance Usual problems are: (i) Knowing the Covariance errors (ii) Sequential 3DVar requires bias models for bf(t+1)= Mb[ba(t)]; cf(t+1)= Mc[ca(t)]; Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  19. Comments on Bias Modelling • Known Biases {bf (t); cf(t) known a priori eg. previous runs} • xa = (xf-cf) + K {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} K = (B+P)[B+P+O+R]-1 • bf (t) = 0; cf(t) = 0 is particular case • (B+P) total model err cov.; (O+R) total obs. err. • Persistent Biases {bf(t+1)= ba(t); cf(t+1)= ca(t) } • xa = (xf-cf) + K {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} K = (B+P)[B+P+O+R]-1 • ba = bf + F {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} F = O[B+P+O+R]-1 • ca = cf + G {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} G = P[B+P+O+R]-1 • If O,P i.e. F,G are small => may hope to converge to ~ constant b,c • Simplifications also arise if P=αB; O=βR => all Innovations proportional • Attribution of Bias: When are O,P sufficiently different to allow identification of misfits {(y-bf) – (xf-cf)} ? • Should always check misfits are consistent with B+P+O+R Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  20. Example: Bias Modelling applied toAltimeter Data Assimilation Mean Sea Level Bias Error Covariance O on Mean Sea Level Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  21. Example: Bias Modelling applied toAltimeter Data Assimilation Mean Sea Level Bias ba Corrected Mean Sea Level Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  22. CONCLUSIONS • Biased model parameterisations can be tuned through 4DVar but only as far as structural errors and computational resources allow • Alternatively build assimilation increments into box-budgets and seek to understand bias as process. Retains physically intuitive interpretation of Bias and Assimilation increments • Having identified bias it should be accounted for during assimilation as it impacts on error weighting of model and data. Will need a bias model eg. understand its persistence, spatial structure, diurnal/seasonal cycling. Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  23. Conservation properties of assimilation • Altimeter Assimilation • Displacement h => Gross Isopycnal geometry • + Currents (geostrophy) • Volume and T/S properties preserved on isopycnals • Adiabatic (Thermodynamically Reversible) • T Profile Assimilation • T(z) => Isothermal Water Volumes • T/S properties preserved (since salinity is not observed) • Volumes and T/S preserved below deepest observation • S(T) Assimilation • S(T) => Isopycnal Water Properties • Large scale, slow variations associated with ventilation and climatic change Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  24. Transformation (slow) Nutrient recycling fast Nutrient recycling fast Box Budgets and Assimilation Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  25. Example: Bias Modelling applied toAltimeter Data Assimilation Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  26. Schmitz (1996) Thermohaline Schematic Broeker Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  27. WOCE Atlantic Section A16 S N Note: Water mass origins AIW, NADW, ABW Currents, Circulation rates and Mixing rates not determined from Core method Long-lived Lagrangian properties of water used to trace spreading pathways. “Core method” Wust (1935) Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  28. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  29. WOCE ComparisonN-S Pacific Temperature section P14TP+ERS1 data 1993 Simulation XBT Assimilation XBT and Altimeter Run available on Live Access Server www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/godiva WOCE Cruise How to quantify the role of assimilation in maintaining thermocline? Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  30. Relevant Ideas • Can we use assimilation methods to perform budgets? • Focus on conservative properties of system (total carbon?) and processes converting between reservoirs • Tune assimilation impact on processes rather than on model parameters Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  31. HadOCC Based on Web Services Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  32. MARQuest proposal • Assimilation of physical ocean data (temperature profiles, satellite data..) => constrain surface temperature and mixed layer depth to observations • Study different ecosystem models embedded into physical model with data assimilation. Compare carbon cycling processes! • Must develop treatment for ecosystem variables for when physical ocean data are assimilated. Careful attention to ecosystem and carbon budgets. • Work with Hadley centre/Met Office FOAM assimilation system. Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

  33. Marine Assimilation in Global Ocean Models • Extensive experience developing • new assimilation algorithms eg. • most recently for ARGO data • Assimilation of hydrography • => vertical T gradients • Assimilation of altimetry • => horizontal T gradients • and currents • Algorithms used operationally at • Met Office, ECMWF, France,US • Assimilation control of surface T • and mixed layer depth will also • constrain Ecosystems 0m Assimilation results 500m Ship Validation WOCE Cruise Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006 15 S 55 N

  34. High resolution FOAM MarQuest: Assimilation impact on Ecosystems • Assimilation controls and corrects seasonal thermocline T and MLD • Biological production will be strongly influenced by assimilation HadOCC thermocline and chlorophyll conc. No Data Assimilation FOAM thermocline With Data Assimilation Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006 All data from www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/godiva

  35. Ideas • Get Icarus ERSEM pictures of carbon cycle • Get Oschlies results figures • More reference figure on inverse modelling • Contact new MIT woman about land surface assim Carbon Fusion 9-11th May 2006

More Related