an ensemble kalman filter data assimilation system for the ...ekalnay/pubs/hoffman_etal_2010.pdf ·...

Icarus xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Icarus

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / icarus

An ensemble Kalman filter data assimilation system for the martianatmosphere: Implementation and simulation experiments

Matthew J. Hoffman a,*, Steven J. Greybush b, R. John Wilson c, Gyorgyi Gyarmati d, Ross N. Hoffman e,Eugenia Kalnay f, Kayo Ide g, Eric J. Kostelich h, Takemasa Miyoshi b, Istvan Szunyogh d

a Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, Johns Hopkins University, 301 Olin Hall, 3400 N Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, United Statesb Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United Statesc NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 308, Princeton, NJ 08542, United Statesd Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, 3150 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3150, United Statese Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., 131 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421, United Statesf Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, Institute for Physical Sciences and Technology, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park,MD 20742, United Statesg Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, Center for Scientific Computation and Mathematical Modeling, Institute for Physical Sciences and Technology,Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United Statesh Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 3 September 2009Revised 29 March 2010Accepted 29 March 2010Available online xxxx

Keywords:MarsMars, AtmosphereAtmospheres, DynamicsMeteorology

0019-1035/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.034

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M.J. Hoffman

Please cite this article in press as: Hoffman, M.Jand simulation experiments. Icarus (2010), doi:

The local ensemble transform Kalman filter (LETKF) is applied to the GFDL Mars general circulation model(MGCM) to demonstrate the potential benefit of an advanced data assimilation method. In perfect model(aka identical twin) experiments, simulated observations are used to assess the performance of the LET-KF–MGCM system and to determine the dependence of the assimilation on observational data coverage.Temperature retrievals are simulated at locations that mirror the spatial distribution of the ThermalEmission Spectrometer (TES) retrievals from the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS). The LETKF convergesquickly and substantially reduces the analysis and subsequent forecast errors in both temperature andvelocity fields, even though only temperature observations are assimilated. The LETKF is also found toaccurately estimate the magnitude of forecast uncertainties, notably those associated with the phaseand amplitude of baroclinic waves along the boundary of the polar ice cap during Northern Hemispherewinter.

� 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With the increase in observational missions in the 1990s, dataassimilation became a realistic option for studies of the martianatmosphere. The Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) in 1996, the MarsOdyssey in 2001, and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2005 pro-vide useful observational data sets of the martian atmosphere.However, coverage remains relatively sparse. The ability of dataassimilation to estimate the state of an atmosphere based on sparsedata sets using general circulation models (GCMs) makes it anextremely useful tool for the martian atmosphere. Data assimila-tion can produce a balanced (i.e., dynamically consistent) analysisfield for all model variables (such as temperature and winds) usingobservations from only one or two observed fields (temperature,dust opacity) that are irregularly sampled in space and time. Thispaper discusses the assimilation of simulated temperature

ll rights reserved.

).

., et al. An ensemble Kalman fil10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.034

observations using the local ensemble transform Kalman filter(LETKF) of Hunt et al. (2007), a powerful and efficient assimilationscheme which has performed very well assimilating satellite obser-vations in the terrestrial atmosphere (e.g., Szunyogh et al., 2005,2008; Whitaker et al., 2008).

The potential benefit of data assimilation for Mars has beenconfirmed by a number of studies (Lewis and Read, 1995; Lewiset al., 1996, 1997, 2007; Houben, 1999) that have applied dataassimilation to spacecraft observations. Banfield et al. (1995), oneof the earliest studies, assimilated simulated observations using aKalman filter approach, however, with a fixed covariance matrix,thereby foregoing the main advantage of the Kalman filter. Simu-lated observations were also used with the analysis correctionscheme of Lorenc et al. (1991) (Lewis and Read, 1995; Lewiset al., 1996, 1997).

Assimilation efforts using real data have focused primarily onobservations from the MGS spacecraft’s Thermal Emission Spec-trometer (TES). Between 1999 and 2005, during more than25,000 polar orbits of Mars, the TES made hundreds of millions

ter data assimilation system for the martian atmosphere: Implementation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.034

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00191035

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus


2 M.J. Hoffman et al. / Icarus xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

of IR radiance measurements of the martian atmosphere with asurface footprint size of approximately 3 � 3 km. These radianceshave been used to derive vertical temperature profiles and dustopacity retrievals (Conrath et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000, 2001).In turn, these atmospheric retrievals of temperature profiles(Houben, 1999; Zhang et al., 2001) and total dust optical depth(Lewis et al., 2007) have been used in assimilation studies withvarying results.

Houben (1999) assimilated real TES temperature retrievals witha 4D-VAR scheme using an approximation of the tangent linearmodel instead of the full tangent linear model. The assimilationrun was very short, but provided promising analyses of the zonalmean fields. TES temperature retrievals were also assimilated byZhang et al. (2001) using the steady state Kalman filter of Banfieldet al. (1995) with mixed results.

The UK Mars data assimilation system is currently the mostcomprehensive system in use. Both temperature and dust opacityretrievals from the TES were assimilated by Lewis et al. (2007)using the analysis correction scheme (Lorenc et al., 1991), whichis a modification of the successive corrections method (SCM).Assimilating these retrievals was found to benefit the atmosphericanalysis during a martian dust storm (Montabone et al., 2005; Le-wis et al., 2007). A reanalysis of the martian atmosphere using thismethod provides the current best estimate of the state of the mar-tian atmosphere during the MGS mission (Montabone et al., 2006).

Here, simulated retrievals of temperature are assimilated by theLETKF into the GFDL Mars GCM (MGCM). In the martian dataassimilation studies described above, the assimilation methodsused have been less advanced as compared to the methods cur-rently used in terrestrial atmospheric data assimilation. One ofthe primary challenges in martian data assimilation is that obser-vational data is extremely sparse. More advanced data assimilationmethods, though, have been found to be more efficient in extract-ing information about the state of the atmosphere from suchsparse data sets (e.g., Szunyogh et al., 2005, 2008; Whitakeret al., 2008). The present work demonstrates that the LETKF isaccurate and robust when applied to an MGCM using simulatedretrievals with a TES-like sampling pattern.

Section 2 describes the Mars model and Section 3 describes theensemble Kalman filter methodology used in this study. Section 4details the simulation experiments and Section 5 describes resultsfrom these experiments. Section 6 presents a summary andconclusions.

2. GFDL Mars general circulation model

The GFDL MGCM was originally based on the GFDL SKYHI ter-restrial GCM and an early version of the model was described inWilson and Hamilton (1996). Subsequent descriptions appear inRichardson and Wilson (2002) and Hinson and Wilson (2004). Thismodel has been used to examine tides and planetary waves (Wil-son and Hamilton, 1996; Hinson and Wilson, 2004; Wilson et al.,2002; Hinson et al., 2003), the water cycle (Richardson and Wilson,2002; Richardson et al., 2002), the dust cycle (Basu et al., 2004,2006; Wilson et al., 2008b) and cloud radiative effects (Hinsonand Wilson, 2004; Wilson et al., 2007, 2008). More recently thephysical parameterizations have been adapted to the GFDL FlexibleModeling System (FMS) which includes a choice of dynamicalcores (finite difference, finite volume and spectral) and associatedinfrastructure. The Mars physics has been tested with all threedynamical cores. Here we elect to use the finite volume (FV) model.

The FV model employs a conservative flux-form semi-Lagrang-ian horizontal discretization with monotonic constraints (Lin andRood, 1996, 1997), a physically consistent finite-volume integra-tion of the pressure gradient force (Lin, 1997), and a terrain-follow-

Please cite this article in press as: Hoffman, M.J., et al. An ensemble Kalman filand simulation experiments. Icarus (2010), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.034

ing Lagrangian control-volume vertical coordinate that simplifiesvertical advection calculations while maintaining high-ordernumerical accuracy (Lin, 2004). This core has been implementedwith a latitude–longitude grid typical of most climate modelsand, more recently, on a cubed-sphere grid (Putnam and Lin,2007). The calculations presented here employ the regular lati-tude–longitude grid structure with 5� � 6� resolution in latitudeand longitude (60 longitudes and 36 latitudes) and 28 levels inthe vertical, extending from the surface to roughly 85 km.

The MGCM includes surface and subsurface physics which al-low the calculation of realistic surface temperatures; a budget forgaseous and condensed CO2 which yields a realistic annual cycleof global atmospheric mass; solar and infrared radiative transferfor both gaseous CO2 and atmospheric aerosol (i.e., dust); aerosoltransport which allows for a self-consistent simulation of the aer-osol distribution; and a boundary layer parameterization. Themodel maintains mass-conserving inventories of water (regolith,surface frost, vapor and condensate) and dust mass (surface dustand aerosol, by particle size), which can be used for accountingwhere dust has been lifted and deposited on the surface.

Model input fields include topography, surface albedo, thermalinertia, and emissivity. Temporally and spatially varying columnopacity and dust injection fields may also be input, depending onthe needs of the experiment being carried out. These input fieldsare interpolated linearly in latitude and longitude to the appropri-ate model grid. The MGCM has a 12-layer soil model with a depth-dependent soil diffusivity that has been tuned to fit the observedTES surface temperatures (Wilson et al., 2007).

The model uses the radiation code developed by the NASA AmesMars modeling group (Kahre et al., 2006, 2008). This code is basedon a two-stream solution to the radiative transfer equation withCO2 and water vapor opacities calculated using correlated-k valuesin 12 spectral bands ranging from 0.3 to 250 lm. The two-streamsolution is generalized for solar and infrared radiation, with scat-tering based on the d-Eddington approximation at visible wave-lengths and the hemispheric mean approximation at infraredwavelengths (Toon et al., 1989). Aerosol heating rates are calcu-lated by using the optical properties of the evolving aerosol sizedistribution (and composition) at both solar and infrared wave-lengths. The dust composition is currently based on a ‘‘Mars dust”analog in the visible (Ockert-Bell et al., 1997) and the IR descrip-tion is based on fits to TES spectra carried out by Wolff and Clancy(2003). The radiation code utilizes tables of optical properties (par-ticle extinction, single scattering albedo and asymmetry factor)tabulated from Mie theory calculations for both bare and ice-coated dust particles.

In the simulations described here, we prescribe a spatially uni-form distribution of dust with a column opacity of 0.3 when refer-enced to the 6.1 hPa pressure surface. Although more sophisticateddescriptions exist and have been used in other studies, this simple,fixed dust distribution was chosen for simplicity in the initial stud-ies. An evolving dust distribution (e.g. Wilson et al., 2008a) will beused in future studies.

3. Local ensemble transform Kalman filter

In a data assimilation scheme, an improved estimate of the cur-rent state is derived by combining current observations and ashort-term forecast of the current state, which is created usingprior information and is referred to as the ‘‘background”. The im-proved state estimate, hereafter called the ‘‘analysis”, is then usedas the initial condition for the model, which, in turn, creates a newforecast at a future time (Fig. 1). Data assimilation proceeds in thismanner, alternating between a forecast step, where the model pre-dicts the future state of the system, and an analysis step, where



Fig. 1. A diagram of the data assimilation workflow.

M.J. Hoffman et al. / Icarus xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

observations taken at this future time are incorporated and theanalysis is created. Both the background and the observations haveerrors, and the analysis step consists of a statistical procedure thattakes these errors into account in determining the analysis state.

The data assimilation scheme used here is the LETKF of Huntet al. (2007) and the implementation is available at http://math.-la.asu.edu/~eric/letkf/index.html. The LETKF is an approximationof the Kalman filter and as such seeks an analysis solution withminimum error variance. As with all ensemble Kalman filters, theLETKF uses an ensemble of k model states to characterize the uncer-tainty of the forecast. These ensemble members are model statesvalid at the same time, which differ only in the initial conditionsused for the model run. In the following equations, the state vectors,x(i), i = 1, . . . , k, are column vectors which contain all of the modelprognostic variables (temperature and winds). The ensemble fore-casts (or background) fields, denoted xb(i), are created by integratingthe model forward for 6 h (i.e., 0.25 sols, since 24 martian hoursequals one sol) from the previous analysis ensemble. The statespace vectors xb(i) are then transformed into observation space vec-tors yb(i) = H(xb(i)) using the observation operator, H. In this paper,the observed variable (temperature) is a model variable and theobservations are simulated at grid points, so H does not involveinterpolation or a conversion from model to observed variables.

The LETKF used here is localized by considering only the obser-vations within a prescribed horizontal and vertical distance. Atrapezoidal taper is used in the horizontal, while a boxcar (stepfunction) taper is used in the vertical. A trapezoidal taper givesweight 1 to all observations inside of a specified inner distanceand then linearly decreases the weights out to an outer distancewhile a boxcar taper gives weight 1 to all observations within asingle specified distance. The algorithm compiles all of the infor-mation in a given region initially and then the analysis at each gridpoint is computed independently. In the equations that follow, thestate and observation vectors are local vectors containing only theinformation in the local neighborhood of the analysis point.

The background state is defined as the mean of the backgroundensemble,

xb ¼ k�1Xk

i¼1

xbðiÞ; ð1Þ

and the background covariance in state space is given by

Pb ¼ ðk� 1Þ�1XbðXbÞT ¼ ðk� 1Þ�1Xk

i¼1

ðxbðiÞ � xbÞðxbðiÞ � xbÞT ; ð2Þ

where Xb is defined as the matrix whose ith column is xb(i) � xb,where xb is the ensemble average. The background covariance,however, is not explicitly computed in the LETKF. Instead, the back-ground perturbations, Xb, are transformed into analysis perturba-tions, Xa, using the symmetric square root of the analysiscovariance in ensemble space:

Xa ¼ Xb½ðk� 1ÞePa�1=2: ð3Þ


The analysis covariance in ensemble space is given by the equation

ePa ¼ ðk� 1ÞIþ YbTR�1Yb

h i�1; ð4Þ

where R is the observation covariance matrix and Yb is the matrix ofbackground ensemble perturbations in observation space whose ithcolumn is yb(i) � yb. Note that the matrix Yb is created using thenon-linear observation operator, as opposed to variational methodsthat require the Jacobian or adjoint of the observation operator.

To complete the data assimilation, the analysis ensemble meanstate is determined by the equation

xa ¼ xb þ XbePaYbTR�1ðyo � ybÞ; ð5Þ

and the new analysis is obtained by adding the analysis mean toeach column of the analysis perturbation matrix Xa. Please referto Hoffman et al. (2008) for a succinct summary of the derivationof the above equations or to Hunt et al. (2007) for the full details.The grid point analysis ensembles are then gathered together to cre-ate the global ensemble analyses, which are used as initial condi-tions for the next cycle ensemble forecasts.

4. Simulated observations and experiment setup

To test the performance of the LETKF–MGCM system, ‘‘identicaltwin” experiments were conducted. In identical twin experiments,the ‘‘true” or ‘‘nature” state of the atmosphere is taken to be a sin-gle model forecast. The assimilation system then tries to approxi-mate this ‘‘true” state beginning from different initial conditions.Since the ‘‘true” state is known, the performance of the systemcan be evaluated. Observations are generated by taking the longnature run used for validation, beginning during Northern Hemi-sphere winter (Ls � 250), and adding random Gaussian errors witha 3 K standard deviation to the temperature field. The assimilationexperiment was started from sol 10 (martian day) of the nature runand assimilations were performed every 6 h at hours 00, 06, 12,and 18. Northern Hemisphere winter is used because travelingRossby waves are found in the Mars atmosphere during that sea-son (Banfield et al., 2004). During the Southern Hemisphere winter(NH summer) the Mars atmosphere is relatively quiescent.

Two separate observation distributions were used. No observa-tions of winds are used in either distribution, but the estimates ofthe zonal and meridional winds provided by the background areupdated by the LETKF based on the temperature observations.TES temperature profiles have been found to have an uncertaintyof approximately 2 K and sometimes larger near the surface (Smithet al., 2001). In reality, the TES retrievals also have correlated er-rors, but here we have ignored this and instead we consider rela-tively large—3 K—random errors for both sets of observations.The first distribution has a simulated temperature observation atevery grid point, which will be referred to as the ‘‘full coverage”observations. The motivation for using only temperature observa-tions is the goal of eventually assimilating TES temperature retri-evals. The full coverage distribution allows the assessment of theLETKF–MGCM system performance under ideal observation cover-age. In the second distribution, called the ‘‘simulated TES” retri-evals, the real TES retrievals from the previous 6 h are read intothe system at every assimilation time and temperature retrievalsare simulated at the grid points closest to the real retrievals butat the assimilation time. The TES temperature profiles are providedat fixed pressure levels, but, because the MGCM uses a hybrid ver-tical coordinate, the closest model level varies geographically andwith time.

In the experiments described in this paper, 16 ensemble mem-bers are used and the covariance inflation factor that multiplies thebackground error covariance at each analysis time is prescribed as


http://math.la.asu.edu/~eric/letkf/index.html

http://math.la.asu.edu/~eric/letkf/index.html


Fig. 2. Vertical levels used in the localization (bars) for each model level in the full coverage (left) and simulated TES (right) distributions. Observations for each of thedistributions at each level are shown as diamonds.

Fig. 3. Left: The temperature [K] and zonal component of the wind vector field [m/s] from sol 10 of the nature run (truth) at a nominal 400 m height above ground. Thetemperature at this height is largely determined by surface heating and the zonal wind has a weak jet at 30�S. Right: The temperature [K] and zonal component of the windvector field [m/s] from the sol 10 of the nature run (truth) at 0.02 hPa. The temperature is smooth, except between 60�N and 90�N, while the zonal wind shows a strong jetbetween 30�N and 90�N.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article in press as: Hoffman, M.J., et al. An ensemble Kalman filter data assimilation system for the martian atmosphere: Implementationand simulation experiments. Icarus (2010), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.034



ARTICLE IN PRESS

0.10. Here the covariance inflation accounts for imperfect assump-tions such as model nonlinearities. In real data applications, covari-ance inflation must also account for the effect of model error.Experiments run with 40 ensemble members yielded a nearlyidentical result, which implies that the martian atmosphere mayhave lower-order dynamics than the more chaotic Earth atmo-sphere, for which ensembles of at least 40 members are common.The horizontal localization distance for this study is 1200 km, fol-lowing the Lewis et al. (2007) assimilation study that used a radiusof influence of 1200 km for observations. The horizontal localiza-tion distance is larger than the martian deformation radius of920 km (Read and Lewis, 2004). A trapezoidal taper is used forthe rectangular horizontal localization which gives weight 1 toall observations inside of 900 km and then linearly decreases theweights to zero at 1200 km.

Ensemble size, covariance inflation, observation error, and hor-izontal localization are held constant in experiments for bothobservation distributions used in this study, but the vertical local-ization parameters are varied based on the observation distribu-tion. Vertical localization is set as a fraction of the atmosphericscale height and is varied by level. For the full coverage distributionof observations, the vertical localization allows the LETKF to useobservations from one or two levels on either side. The simulatedTES retrievals, however, have gaps of up to six model levels with-out a retrieved value, so a larger vertical localization radius isneeded, particularly in the upper levels of the atmosphere. The ver-tical profiles derived from the TES retrievals have values at 19 pres-sure levels, compared with 28 model levels. When the TES pressurelevels are mapped to the nearest model level of the MGCM, thereare a few instances of more than one TES profile levels being clos-est to the same model level. As a result, instead of 19 profile levels,there are approximately 14 levels in a simulated TES profile. Fur-

a b

c

Fig. 4. (a) The RMS error north of 30�N in temperature [K] from an identical twin experimhorizontal localization radius, and 10% inflation. (b) The RMS error north of 30�N in zona[m/s] of the same experiment. The analysis and forecast (i.e., background) are improved


thermore, these levels are not evenly distributed throughout themodel. The majority of the TES retrieval profiles are concentratedin the middle of the model grid between pressures of 4.76 hPaand 0.11 hPa (model levels 18 through 7). There are no TES retri-evals higher than 0.11 hPa, so the upper six levels of the modelhave no observations. Fig. 2 shows the vertical observation distri-butions and the levels used in the localization for both experi-ments. There is no tapering used in the vertical, so all levelswithin the localization distance are given weight 1.

The experiment using full observational coverage correspondsto 57,120 temperature observations at every analysis time whereasthe simulated TES distribution corresponds to only about 4300 ret-rievals per analysis or 7% of the full coverage. There are some anal-ysis times with no retrievals due to data gaps caused by a variety ofspacecraft operational issues. Longer gaps in the data (�20 days)occur when the orbiter is in solar occultation interrupting commu-nication with Earth, although the data period used here does notcontain an occultation.

To create the initial ensemble, the 16 model states from the pre-vious four sols of the nature run were used. The LETKF–MGCM sys-tem was then run for a 55 sol period from Ls � 256 to Ls � 292, soall results correspond to Northern Hemisphere winter. As a bench-mark, a long integration of the model was also carried out startingfrom the background (initial ensemble average) of the very firstdata assimilation step. Such an initial condition would not be onthe attractor (i.e., dynamically consistent) at first, so it is expectedthat there will be an initial spin-down towards the attractor. Theresults from this run, called the free run forecast (FRF), representthe case where no observational information is injected into thestate estimation process.

Since much of the variability during Northern Hemispherewinter is due to Rossby waves along the polar temperature front

ent using observations at every grid point with observation error of 3 K, a 1200 kml wind [m/s] of the same experiment. (c) The RMS error north of 30�N in zonal wind

for the winds even though no wind observations are assimilated.



ba

Fig. 5. (a) Time evolution of the root-mean-square error north of 30�N in the estimates of the temperature [K] by the free model run and the cycled data assimilation oftemperature observations at a nominal height of 400 m above ground level. (b) Time evolution of the root-mean-square error north of 30�N in the estimates of thetemperature [K] by the free model run and the cycled data assimilation of temperature observations at 0.02 hPa height.

Fig. 6a. The RMS analysis error [K] (shaded) and average truth temperature field [K] (contour) from sol 2 to sol 21 of the experiment at a nominal height of 400 m aboveground level using observations at every grid point with 3 K observation error, 10% inflation, and 16 ensemble members.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

(Banfield et al., 2003, 2004), results here focus on the improvementprovided by the analysis poleward of 30�N. Upper and lower levelsof the MGCM exhibit different behavior in the free run forecastbased on their different dynamics. In addition to vertically averagedresults, results are shown for two levels: a nominal height of 400 mabove ground level that is strongly affected by forcing of the atmo-sphere by solar surface heating and topography; and at 0.02 hPa inthe free atmosphere that is characterized by a strong meridionaltemperature gradient and associated zonal wind jet. The differencebetween the atmospheric flow at the two levels is illustrated byshowing the temperature and the zonal component of the wind atboth levels in the nature run at a time when the model state is al-ready settled on the model attractor after the initial transient phaseof model behavior (Fig. 3). In Fig. 3 we see a strong diurnal temper-ature signal and a weak zonal wind jet around 30�S near the surfaceand a smooth temperature field and strong zonal jet in the free


atmosphere. As a consequence, the analysis and FRF errors exhibitdifferent behavior at the two levels as well.

5. Results

Using the full coverage observations, the LETKF–MGCM systemquickly reduces the analysis and subsequent forecast root-mean-square (RMS) error for the temperature (Fig. 4a), zonal velocity(Fig. 4b), and meridional velocity (Fig. 4c). The state estimationerror in the free run, started from the ensemble average of statestaken at different times of the day, initially decreases with time(Fig. 4a) as the model equilibrates to the forcing of the diurnalcycle, which underscores the dominate role that diurnal forcingplays in the evolution of the Mars atmosphere dynamics, especiallyat near surface levels. Compared to the vertically averaged



Fig. 6b. Vertical profile of the RMS analysis error [K] (shaded) and average truth temperature field [K] (contour) over the same period. The vertical axis is model level labeledby reference pressure in hPa, plotted with a log axis.

Fig. 7a. Background RMS error [K] (shaded) and background spread in temperature [K] (contour) averaged over the period from sol 2 of the simulation to sol 21 at a nominalheight of 400 m above ground level using observations at every grid point with 3 K observation error, 10% inflation, and 16 ensemble members.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

temperature analysis errors (Fig. 4a), greater variability is seen inthe analysis of temperature at the lower and upper levels of theatmosphere (Fig. 5a and b) and in the velocity fields (Fig. 4b andc). In all of the fields, the data assimilation has a large positiveinfluence on the accuracy of the state estimate. Compared to theFRF, the injection of observations within the LETKF acceleratesthe initial speed of the convergence and leads to a major reductionof the asymptotic value of the RMS error in the state estimate. Inthe meridional wind field, which is not directly observable fromsatellites, these improvements could provide a more accurate pic-ture of the diabatic circulation.

There is a difference between the behaviors of the estimationerrors at 0.02 hPa and nominal 400 m over the first 2–3 sols. Dataassimilation leads to a quicker improvement in the lower levelsand error remains relatively constant in time. In the upper atmo-sphere, where dynamics plays a relatively more important role


compared to the diurnal surface forcing, there is more fluctuationinitially before the RMS error approaches the asymptotic value atsol 5. The greater role of dynamics as opposed to forcing in theupper levels of the atmosphere can also be seen in the ensemblespread. Ensemble spread is larger above 0.4 hPa and below a nom-inal 400 m height above ground, while the forecast ensemblespread collapses quickly in between.

In the full coverage observation experiment, the largest analysiserror is in the Northern Hemisphere in the lower levels. The RMSanalysis error and the average temperature field show that thelargest analysis error occurs along the sharp temperature gradientaround 45�N at the boundary of the polar ice cap (Fig. 6a). Theanalysis error extends upwards in the vertical along this tempera-ture front, which can be seen in the zonal average (Fig. 6b). Theanalysis error is extremely low in other regions. Analysis errorsat around 45�N (Fig. 6) have the same horizontal and vertical



Fig. 7b. Analysis RMS error (shaded) and average analysis spread (contour) in temperature for the same experiment as (a).

a b

c

Fig. 8. (a) Comparison of the RMS error north of 30�N in temperature using full coverage observations (full coverage analysis) and simulated TES retrievals (simulated TESanalysis). A 1200 km horizontal localization radius is used with an observation error of 3 K, 10% inflation, and 16 ensemble members. (b) Same comparison in zonal wind and(c) meridional wind.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

signature as the strong baroclinic waves that have been observedin this region and season (Barnes et al., 1993; Banfield et al.,2004; Wilson et al., 2002).

This area of background error is largely captured by the ensem-ble spread and the values of the spread match up well with thebackground error (Fig. 7a). The ensemble spread is seen to be larg-est around 45�N and the shape of the spread is spatially similar to


that of the analysis error. The average analysis error is slightlysmaller than the background error and the analysis spread hasthe same spatial structure as the analysis error (Fig. 7b) alongthe temperature front. There is a patch of larger analysis error nearthe pole which is not well captured by the ensemble spread.

Full coverage observation experiments are an excellent methodof studying predictability and testing the performance of the



a b

dc

Fig. 9. Temperature RMS error north of 30�N from an experiment using simulated TES retrievals with 3 K error, 10% inflation, and a 16 member ensemble at (top left) anominal height of 400 m above ground level and (top right) 0.02 hPa height. Zonal wind RMS error north of 30�N from the same at (bottom left) a nominal height of 400 mabove ground level and (bottom right) 0.02 hPa height.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

LETKF, however they do not represent the actual distribution of theTES retrieval data. To investigate the sensitivity of the LETKF–MGCM system to data coverage, the simulated TES retrievals areused. We note that the number of simulated TES retrievals is lessthan 7% of the number of observations for the full coverageexperiments.

The state estimate of temperature in the simulated TES retrievalexperiment is worse than the analysis using full coverage observa-tions, although both experiments reach very low RMS error levelsafter 10–15 sols (Fig. 8a). Having observations at every grid pointleads to a quicker initial reduction of the temperature error: theanalysis error drops below the observation error after just 1 assim-ilation in the full coverage case and after 2 assimilations in the sim-ulated TES case. The state estimates of zonal velocity (Fig. 8b) andmeridional velocity (Fig. 8c) exhibit similar behavior. There is aspike in analysis error during the first five sols of the both experi-ments. After that initial period, the analysis error drops dramati-cally and approaches an asymptotic value between 13 and 14 sols.

As in the full coverage experiments, the error reduction exhibitsdifferent behavior at 0.02 hPa and at a nominal 400 m height aboveground level. In addition to the difference in dynamics that affectedthe results in the full coverage experiments, here 0.02 hPa heightnever includes simulated TES retrievals and a nominal height of400 m above ground rarely does so nearly all corrections at thesetwo levels come from observations at other levels. The tempera-ture RMS error in both levels decreases below the observationRMS error, but the state estimate for a nominal 400 m above


ground is more accurate when compared to the free run forecast(Fig. 9). The zonal wind analysis state estimate in both levels is alsoimproved over the free run (Fig. 9). The assimilation provides a sig-nificant immediate improvement in the upper levels of the model.After five sols, the analysis RMS error at 0.02 hPa height is approx-imately 4 m/s, while the free run error is approximately 17 m/s.The analysis RMS error at 0.02 hPa appears to approach an asymp-tote at approximately 1 m/s, while the free run forecast RMS errorfluctuates from 5 m/s to 10 m/s. At a nominal height of 400 mabove ground, the free run forecast error remains approximately5 m/s throughout the simulation, while the analysis RMS errordrops to approximately 0.8 m/s.

Analysis errors are higher in the upper atmosphere using thesimulated TES retrievals because the internal dynamics play a rel-atively more important role compared to forcing than in the loweratmosphere and there are no observations higher than 0.1 hPa. Incontrast to the full coverage observation experiment (Fig. 6b),where the dominant vertical errors were from the baroclinic wavesin the lower atmosphere, the dominant analysis errors using sim-ulated TES retrievals are in the zonal jet in the upper levels ofthe winter hemisphere (Fig. 10). The state estimate at a nominal400 m height above ground is accurate, even in the absence of di-rect observations, because the surface forcing constrains the atmo-sphere in the lower levels.

Despite the presence of analysis error in the upper atmosphereat 0.02 hPa, the analysis provides a superior estimate of the loca-tion and strength of the zonal jet than the free run forecast



Fig. 10. Vertical profile of the analysis RMS error [K] (shaded) and average truth temperature field [K] from sol 2 to sol 21 of the simulation (contour) using simulated TESretrievals with 3 K observation error, 10% inflation, and 16 ensemble members. The vertical axis is labeled by reference pressure in hPa, plotted with a log axis. Note that thereis a change in the colorbar scale relative to Fig. 6b.

Fig. 11. Magnitude of the error in the free run forecast of zonal wind [m/s] at a nominal height of 400 m above ground level (top left) and 0.02 hPa height (top right) and theanalysis of zonal wind [m/s] at a nominal height of 400 m above ground level (bottom left) and 0.02 hPa height (bottom right) from sol 2, 6 h of the experiment usingsimulated TES retrievals with error 3 K, 16 ensemble members, and 10% inflation.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

(Fig. 11). After two sols, the free run forecast has an incorrect loca-tion for the Northern Hemisphere zonal jet, which leads to errors ofover 20 m/s. In the analysis, the jet location is correct, and errors


are less than 10 m/s in the jet region. Improvement in the zonalwind is also seen near the surface at a nominal 400 m height aboveground, but is not as dramatic as in the upper atmosphere.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

6. Summary

The local ensemble transform Kalman filter (LETKF) applied tothe GFDL Mars general circulation model (MGCM) in perfect modelexperiments assimilating only temperature data results in a signif-icant reduction in the RMS error of the temperature and windfields as compared to a forecast with no data assimilation. Themartian atmospheric dynamics are dominated by solar heatingand topographic forcing at lower levels and the primary sourcesof analysis error are the large scale, low wavenumber baroclinicwaves in the winter hemisphere. These sources of error are accu-rately captured by the ensemble spread. The atmosphere is moredynamically driven in the upper levels and characterized by astrong zonal jet which the LETKF analysis accurately corrects, evenwithout any wind observations. Assimilations using observationsat every grid point provide a good test of the LETKF–MGCM system,but the real observational data coverage from the TES instrument issparse (only 7% of the full coverage) and has vertically correlatederrors. The vertical correlation in the observation errors was notaccounted for in these experiments and larger random errors wereused instead. To see the sensitivity of the system to the decreasedobservation density of satellite retrievals, retrievals are simulatedat the grid points closest to the real TES track. The resulting anal-ysis is a major improvement over the free run forecast and exhibitssimilar asymptotic behavior to the full coverage experiment afterapproximately 15 sols. The full coverage experiment RMS errorsasymptote at approximately 0.1 K, while the simulated TES retrie-val experiment RMS errors asymptote at approximately 0.3 K,which is a tenth of the 3 K observation error. These results showthat there is much potential for using the LETKF–MGCM systemto produce an accurate reanalysis of the martian climate. Most ofthe simulated TES retrievals are at the middle levels of the model,with no retrievals at the upper six levels. As a result, the largestanalysis errors using the simulated TES retrievals are in the zonaljet and the upper atmosphere.

The excellent Mars OSSE results obtained here suggest that theMGCM–LETKF system should be capable of assimilating real TESretrievals. The main challenges we expect in the real data caseare that the model is far from perfect, and that TES retrievals havepoorly known and strongly correlated errors. We plan to addressthese difficulties with new techniques developed to estimateobservation errors and physical parameters (such as parametersneeded to model dust lifting) within the LETKF (e.g., Li et al.,2009) and to test the direct assimilation of radiances.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the NASA Mars Data Analysis Pro-gram (MDAP) Grant NNX07AN97G and the NASA Mars Fundamen-tal Research Program (MFRP) Grant NNX07AV45G.

References

Banfield, D., Ingersoll, A., Keppenne, C., 1995. A steady-state Kalman filter forassimilating data from a single polar-orbiting satellite. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 737–775.

Banfield, D., Conrath, B.J., Gierasch, P.J., Wilson, R.J., Smith, M.D., 2004. Travelingwaves in the martian atmosphere from MGS TES nadir data. Icarus 170 (2).doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.015.

Barnes, J.R., Pollack, J.B., Haberle, R.M., Leovy, C.B., Zurek, R.W., Lee, H., Schaeffer, J.,1993. Mars atmospheric dynamics as simulated by the NASA Ames generalcirculation model. 2. Transient baroclinic eddies. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 3125–3148.

Basu, S., Richardson, M.I., Wilson, R.J., 2004. Simulation of the martian dust cyclewith the GFDL Mars GCM. J. Geophys. Res. 109, E11906. doi:10.1029/2004JE002243.

Basu, S., Wilson, R.J., Richardson, M.I., Ingersoll, A.P., 2006. Simulation ofspontaneous and variable global dust storms with the GFDL Mars GCM. J.Geophys. Res. 111, E09004. doi:10.1029/2005JE002660.


Conrath, B.J., Pearl, J.C., Smith, M.D., Maguire, W.C., Dason, S., Kaelberer, M.S.,Christensen, P.R., 2000. Mars Global Surveyor Thermal Emission Spectrometer(TES) observations: Atmospheric temperatures during aerobraking and sciencephasing. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (E4), 9509–9519.

Hinson, D., Wilson, R.J., 2004. Temperature inversions, thermal tides, and water iceclouds in the martian tropics. J. Geophys. Res. 109, E01002. doi:10.1029/JE002129.

Hinson, D.P., Wilson, R.J., Smith, M.D., Conrath, B.J., 2003. Stationary planetarywaves in the atmosphere of Mars during southern winter. J. Geophys. Res. 108(E1), 5004. doi:10.1029/2002JE001949.

Hoffman, R.N., Ponte, R.M., Kostelich, E.J., Blumberg, A., Szunyogh, I., Vinogradov, S.,Henderson, J.M., 2008. A simulation study using a local ensemble transformKalman filter for data assimilation in New York Harbor. J. Atmos. OceanicTechnol. 25, 1638–1656.

Houben, H., 1999. Assimilation of Mars Global Surveyor meteorological data. Adv.Space Res. 23 (11), 1899–1902.

Hunt, B.R., Kostelich, E.J., Szunyogh, I., 2007. Efficient data assimilation forspatiotemporal chaos: A local ensemble transform Kalman filter. Physica D230, 112–126.

Kahre, M.A., Murphy, J.R., Haberle, R.M., 2006. Modeling the martian dust cycle andsurface dust reservoirs with the NASA Ames general circulation model. J.Geophys. Res. 111, E06008. doi:10.1029/2005JE002588.

Kahre, M.A., Hollingsworth, J.L., Haberle, R.M., Murphy, J.R., 2008. Investigations ofthe variability of dust particle sizes in the martian atmosphere using the NASAAmes general circulation model. Icarus 195 (2), 576–597. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.01.023.

Lewis, S.R., Read, P.L., 1995. An operational data assimilation scheme for themartian atmosphere. Adv. Space Res. 16 (6), 9–13.

Lewis, S.R., Collins, M., Read, P.L., 1996. Martian atmospheric data assimilation witha simplified general circulation model: Orbiter and lander networks. Planet.Space Sci. 44, 1395–1409.

Lewis, S.R., Collins, M., Read, P.L., 1997. Data assimilation with a martian atmo-spheric GCM: An example using thermal data. Adv. Space Res. 19, 1267–1270.

Lewis, S.R., Read, P.L., Conrath, B.J., Pearl, J.C., Smith, M.D., 2007. Assimilation ofThermal Emission Spectrometer atmospheric data during the Mars GlobalSurveyor aerobraking period. Icarus 192, 327–347.

Li, H., Kalnay, E., Miyoshi, T., 2009. Simultaneous estimation of covariance inflationand observation errors within ensemble Kalman filter. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134(639), 523–533.

Lin, S.-J., 1997. A finite-volume integration method for computing pressure gradientforces in general vertical coordinates. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 123, 1749–1762.

Lin, S.-J., 2004. A ‘‘vertically Lagrangian” finite-volume dynamical core for globalmodels. Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 2293–2307.

Lin, S.-J., Rood, R.B., 1996. Multidimensional flux-form semi-Lagrangian transportschemes. Mon. Weather Rev. 124, 2046–2070.

Lin, S.-J., Rood, R.B., 1997. An explicit flux-form semi-Lagrangian shallow watermodel on the sphere. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 123, 2477–2498.

Lorenc, A.C., Bell, R.S., Macpherson, B., 1991. The Meteorological Office analysiscorrection data assimilation scheme. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 117, 59–89.

Montabone, L., Lewis, S.R., Read, P.L., 2005. Interannual variability of martian duststorms in assimilation of several years of Mars Global Surveyor observations.Adv. Space Res. 36, 2146–2155.

Montabone, L., Lewis, S.R., Read, P.L., Hinson, D.P., 2006. Validation of martianmeteorological data assimilations for MGS/TES using radio occultationmeasurements. Icarus 198, 113–232. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.07.012.

Ockert-Bell, M.E., Bell III, J.F., Pollack, J.B., McKay, C.P., Forget, F., 1997. Absorptionand scattering properties of the martian dust in the solar wavelengths. J.Geophys. Res. 102, 9039–9050.

Putnam, W.M., Lin, S.-J., 2007. Finite-volume transport on various cubed-spheregrids. J. Comput. Phys. 227 (1), 55–78.

Read, P.L., Lewis, S.R., 2004. The Mars Climate Revisited: Atmosphere andEnvironment of a Desert Planet. Springer-Praxis.

Richardson, M.I., Wilson, R.J., 2002. Investigation of the nature and stability of themartian seasonal water cycle with a general circulation model. J. Geophys. Res.107 (E5), 5031. doi:10.1029/2001JE001536.

Richardson, M.I., Wilson, R.J., Rodin, A.V., 2002. Water ice clouds in the martianatmosphere: General circulation model experiments with a simple cloudscheme. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (E9), 5064. doi:10.1029/2001JE001804.

Smith, M.D., Pearl, J.C., Conrath, B.J., Christensen, P.R., 2000. Mars Global SurveyorThermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) observations of dust opacity duringaerobraking and science phasing. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (E4), 9539–9552.

Smith, M.D., Pearl, J.C., Conrath, B.J., Christensen, P.R., 2001. Thermal EmissionSpectrometer results: Mars atmospheric thermal structure and aerosoldistribution. J. Geophys. Res. 106 (E10), 23929–23945.

Szunyogh, I., Kostelich, E.J., Gyarmati, G., Kalnay, E., Hunt, B.R., Ott, E., Satterfield, E.,Yorke, J.A., 2005. Assessing a local ensemble Kalman filter: Perfect modelexperiments with the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Model.Tellus 57A, 528–545.

Szunyogh, I., Kostelich, E.J., Gyarmati, G., Kalnay, E., Hunt, B.R., Ott, E., Satterfield, E.,Yorke, J.A., 2008. A local ensemble transform Kalman filter data assimilationsystem for the NCEP global model. Tellus 60A, 113–130.

Toon, O.B., McKay, C.P., Ackerman, T.P., Santhanam, K., 1989. Rapid calculation ofradiative heating rates and photodissociation rates in inhomogeneous multiplescattering atmospheres. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 16287–16301.

Whitaker, J.S., Hamill, T.M., Wei, X., Song, Y., Toth, Z., 2008. Ensemble data assimilationwith the NCEP Global Forecast System. Mon. Weather Rev. 136, 463–482.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JE002243

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JE002243

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JE002660

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JE002129

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JE002129

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JE001949

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JE002588




http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JE001536

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JE001804



ARTICLE IN PRESS

Wilson, R.J., Hamilton, K.P., 1996. Comprehensive model simulation of thermal tidesin the martian atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci. 53 (9), 1290–1326.

Wilson, R.J., Banfield, D., Conrath, B.J., Smith, M.D., 2002. Traveling waves in theNorthern Hemisphere of Mars. Icarus 29 (14). doi:10.1029/2002GL014866.

Wilson, R.J., Neumann, G., Smith, M.D., 2007. The diurnal variation and radiativeinfluence of martian water ice clouds. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02710.doi:10.1029/2006GL027976.

Wilson, R.J., Lewis, S.R., Montabone, L., 2008a. Influence of water ice clouds onmartian tropical atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L07202.doi:10.1029/2007GL032405.


Wilson, R.J., Haberle, R.M., Noble, J., Bridger, A.F.C., Schaeffer, J., Barnes, J.R., Cantor,B.A., 2008b. Simulation of the 2001 planet-encircling dust storm with the NASA/NOAA Mars general circulation model. LPI contributions No. 1447, p. 9023.

Wolff, M.J., Clancy, R.T., 2003. Constraints on the size of martian aerosols fromThermal Emission Spectrometer observations. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (E9), 5098.doi:10.1029/2003JE002058.

Zhang, K.Q., Ingersoll, A.P., Kass, D.M., Pearl, J.C., Smith, M.D., Conrath, B.J., Haberle,R.M., 2001. Assimilation of Mars Global Surveyor atmospheric temperature datainto a general circulation model. J. Geophys. Res. 106 (E12), 32863–32877.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GL014866

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027976

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032405

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JE002058


an ensemble kalman filter data assimilation system for the ...ekalnay/pubs/hoffman_etal_2010.pdf ·...

Documents