forked from NASA-LIS/LISF
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
BUG: fixed bug with multiplicative observation error #53
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
drdunmire1417
wants to merge
1
commit into
KUL-RSDA:archive/master-kul
Choose a base branch
from
drdunmire1417:MultObs_bugfix
base: archive/master-kul
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good fix for snow DA, and for our specific application. However, (1) I can imagine objections about passing information on the obs_predictions into the generation of observation specs, but do not have an efficient alternative right away. Maybe it needs to be a separate 'post'-observation routine, that kicks in for specific observation types, but I am not sure. (2) If this is done in the enkf, do we need something similar in the other DA tools? Both concerns are just to keep in mind - I am not saying that we need to do it now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On (1): We could consider including in the pert_attrbs a user-defined parameter that defines a minimum obs error in the case of the multiplicative obs error option. This would make it obsolete to pass the obs_predictions. This would also solve the problem that an obs value slightly above 0 would cause a switch to the else statement which results in an abrupt change of the error from one time step to the other. This could be avoided by using this minimum obs error for low values in the observations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I think that Michel's suggestion is a good solution. We would probably need to pass in 2 parameters: #1 - the minimum value, below which a constant error is set, #2 - the constant error for these near-0 values