Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 502

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atmospheric Data Assimilation with an Ensemble Kalman Filter: Results with Real Observations

Open access
Houtekamer, P. L., Mitchell, Herschel L., Pellerin, Gérard, Buehner, Mark, Charron, Martin, Spacek, Lubos, Hansen, Bjarne·2005·Monthly Weather Review

Abstract

An ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) has been implemented for atmospheric data assimilation. It assimilates observations from a fairly complete observational network with a forecast model that includes a standard operational set of physical parameterizations. To obtain reasonable results with a limited number of ensemble members, severe horizontal and vertical covariance localizations have been used. It is observed that the error growth in the data assimilation cycle is mainly due to model error. An isotropic parameterization, similar to the forecast-error parameterization in variational algorithms, is used to represent model error. After some adjustment, it is possible to obtain innovation statistics that agree with the ensemble-based estimate of the innovation amplitudes for winds and temperature. Currently, no model error is added for the humidity variable, and, consequently, the ensemble spread for humidity is too small. After about 5 days of cycling, fairly stable global filter statistics are obtained with no sign of filter divergence. The quality of the ensemble mean background field, as verified using radiosonde observations, is similar to that obtained using a 3D variational procedure. In part, this is likely due to the form chosen for the parameterized model error. Nevertheless, the degree of similarity is surprising given that the background-error statistics used by the two procedures are rather different, with generally larger background errors being used by the variational scheme. A set of 5-day integrations has been started from the ensemble of initial conditions provided by the EnKF. For the middle and lower troposphere, the growth rates of the perturbations are somewhat smaller than the growth rate of the actual ensemble mean error. For the upper levels, the perturbation patterns decay for about 3 days as a consequence of diffusive model dynamics. These decaying perturbations tend to severely underestimate the actual error that grows rapidly near the model top.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/mwr-2864.1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 502

Metadata

Authors
Houtekamer, P. L., Mitchell, H. L., Pellerin, G., Buehner, M., Charron, M., Spacek, L., & Hansen, B.
Venue
Monthly Weather Review
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
133
Issue
3
Pages
604-620
ISSN
  • 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0493
OpenAlex
W2098115494
Cited by
502
References
1
FWCI
20.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Atmospheric Data Assimilation with an Ensemble Kalman Filter: Results with Real Observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/mwr-2864.1
The paper
Houtekamer, P. L., Mitchell, H. L., Pellerin, G., Buehner, M., Charron, M., Spacek, L., & Hansen, B. (2005). Atmospheric Data Assimilation with an Ensemble Kalman Filter: Results with Real Observations. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-2864.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.