the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Potential Artifacts of Sequential State Estimation Invariants
Abstract. In sequential estimation methods often used in general climate or oceanic calculations of the state and of forecasts, observations act mathematically and statistically as forcings as is obvious in the innovation form of the equations. For purposes of calculating changes in important functions of state variables such as total mass and energy, or in volumetric current transports, results are sensitive to mis-representation of a large variety of parameters including initial conditions, prior uncertainty covariances, and systematic and random errors in observations. Errors are both stochastic and systematic, with the latter, as usual, being the most intractable. Here some of the consequences of such errors are first analyzed in the context of a simplified mass-spring oscillator system exhibiting many of the issues of far more complicated realistic problems. The same methods are then applied to a more geophysical barotropic Rossby wave plus western boundary current system. The overall message is that convincing trend and other time-dependent determinations in "reanalyis" like estimates requires a full understanding of both models and observations.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1696 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on os-2021-113', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on os-2021-113', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jan 2022
The manuscript addresses an important topic that is of concern for the interpretation and use of data assimilation products. The focus of the paper is on the use of sequential assimilation products in the context of estimating trends, highlighting the potential to obtain spurious results originating from purely methodological artifacts. I personally consider the topic to be important to be addressed in the open literature, given that several papers do exactly this without sufficient critical reflection.
However, I find the paper itself still preliminary and not ready for publication and therefore suggest returning it for a major revision. Generally, it is written like a textbook and not really like a scientific publication. Moreover, the text is still in a preliminary stage, reflected, e.g., in sentences that show words twice (e.g., line 45), or figure captions that are incomplete or inconsistent (e.g., Fig. 2). I also find the structure of the paper rather unconventional.
To improve the paper, I suggest taking out Section 1.1; to make Section 1 a real introduction focusing on the essential and the question to be address; shorten also other parts so that the reader gets pointed directly toward the main messages. Now the essential points are somewhat hidden between to many textbook aspects that had been published in Carl's own books. Also, the hints toward ECCO results, while generally valid and useful, appear more anecdotal and do not ad real substance.
Will send an annotated version of the text directly and personally to the author containing more suggestions.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-113-RC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on os-2021-113', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on os-2021-113', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jan 2022
The manuscript addresses an important topic that is of concern for the interpretation and use of data assimilation products. The focus of the paper is on the use of sequential assimilation products in the context of estimating trends, highlighting the potential to obtain spurious results originating from purely methodological artifacts. I personally consider the topic to be important to be addressed in the open literature, given that several papers do exactly this without sufficient critical reflection.
However, I find the paper itself still preliminary and not ready for publication and therefore suggest returning it for a major revision. Generally, it is written like a textbook and not really like a scientific publication. Moreover, the text is still in a preliminary stage, reflected, e.g., in sentences that show words twice (e.g., line 45), or figure captions that are incomplete or inconsistent (e.g., Fig. 2). I also find the structure of the paper rather unconventional.
To improve the paper, I suggest taking out Section 1.1; to make Section 1 a real introduction focusing on the essential and the question to be address; shorten also other parts so that the reader gets pointed directly toward the main messages. Now the essential points are somewhat hidden between to many textbook aspects that had been published in Carl's own books. Also, the hints toward ECCO results, while generally valid and useful, appear more anecdotal and do not ad real substance.
Will send an annotated version of the text directly and personally to the author containing more suggestions.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-113-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
741 | 144 | 39 | 924 | 38 | 33 |
- HTML: 741
- PDF: 144
- XML: 39
- Total: 924
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1