|
|
Training
Course Notes Front Page >>
Table of contents >>
Next Section >>
Previous Section >>
2 . Comparison between the ECMWF 3dVar
and 4dVar systems
The ECMWF 4dVar system is, from the technical
point of view, very similar to the 3dVar system. Both systems use the same
unix scripts, and share much of the Fortran code. The same background error
covariance matrix and observation operators are used, and most of the peripheral
tasks such as fetching and archiving of fields and observations are the
same for the two analysis systems.
The main differences between the ECMWF 3dVar
and 4dVar analyses (apart from the obvious difference that 4dVar includes
integrations of the tangent linear and adjoint models during the minimization)
are as follows:
| |
• In 4dVar we perform two
incremental updates. The tangent linear and adjoint models used during
the first update include only very simple parameterizations of physical
processes (Buizza 1994). A more complete
package of physical parameterizations (Mahfouf and Rabier, 2000) is
included for the second update. However, the parameterizations are
computationally expensive. To reduce computational expense, the second
update carries out fewer iterations of minimization than the first. |
| |
• For historical reasons,
3dVar approximates the tangent linear observation operators using
a finite difference: |
|
whereas 4dVar uses the true tangent
linear operators. |
| |
• In 3dVar, all observations
for the 6-hour window centred on the analysis time are collected together
and are compared with the high-resolution trajectory at the nominal
analysis time. The incremental cost function is: |
|
In 4dVar, the observations are divided
into 1-hour timeslots and compared with the trajectory at the appropriate
time: |
Training Course Notes Front Page >>
Table of contents >>
Next Section >>
Previous Section >>
|