Articles | Volume 22, issue 4
Research article
24 Jul 2015
Research article |  | 24 Jul 2015

Verification against perturbed analyses and observations

N. E. Bowler, M. J. P. Cullen, and C. Piccolo

Related authors

Modelling static 3-D spatial background error covariances – the effect of vertical and horizontal transform order
M. A. Wlasak and M. J. P. Cullen
Adv. Sci. Res., 11, 63–67,,, 2014
Validation of MIPAS-ENVISAT H2O operational data collected between July 2002 and March 2004
G. Wetzel, H. Oelhaf, G. Berthet, A. Bracher, C. Cornacchia, D. G. Feist, H. Fischer, A. Fix, M. Iarlori, A. Kleinert, A. Lengel, M. Milz, L. Mona, S. C. Müller, J. Ovarlez, G. Pappalardo, C. Piccolo, P. Raspollini, J.-B. Renard, V. Rizi, S. Rohs, C. Schiller, G. Stiller, M. Weber, and G. Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 5791–5811,,, 2013
Short summary
It has long been known that verification of a forecast against the sequence of analyses used to produce those forecasts can under-estimate the magnitude of forecast errors. Here we show that under certain conditions the verification of a short-range forecast against a perturbed analysis coming from an ensemble data assimilation scheme can give the same root-mean-square error as verification against the truth. This means that a perturbed analysis can be used as a reliable proxy for the truth.