This research has been funded by 1) NOAA’s THORPEX program and 2) the NOAA Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program. We are grateful for the work of Dave Parrish (NCEP) for leading the implementation of the hybrid software in GSI, John Derber (NCEP) for optimization of the EnKF, and Xuguang Wang (University of Oklahoma) for contributions to the hybrid development.
Buizza, R., M. Leutbecher, L. Isaksen, and J. Haseler, 2011: Combined use of EDA and SV-based perturbations in the EPS. ECMWF Newsletter, No. 123, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 22–28.
Chakraborty, A., 2010: The skill of ECMWF medium-range forecasts during the year of tropical convection 2008. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 3787–3805.
Hamill, T. M., J. S. Whitaker, M. Fiorino, and S. J. Benjamin, 2011: Global ensemble predictions of 2009’s tropical cyclones initialized with an ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 668–688.
Isaksen, L., J. Haseler, R. Buizza, and M. Leutbecher, 2010: The new ensemble of data assimilations. ECMWF Newsletter, No. 123, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 17–21.
Kleist, D. T., D. F. Parrish, J. C. Derber, R. Treadon, R. M. Errico, and R. Yang, 2009a: Improving incremental balance in the GSI 3DVAR analysis system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 1046–1060.
Kleist, D. T., D. F. Parrish, J. C. Derber, R. Treadon, W.-S. Wu, and S. J. Lord, 2009b: Introduction of the GSI into the NCEP Global Data Assimilation System. Wea. Forecasting, 24, 1691–1705.
Lorenc, A. C., 2003: The potential of the ensemble Kalman filter for NWP—A comparison with 4D-VAR. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129, 3183–3203.
Miller, M., R. Buizza, J. Haseler, M. Hortal, P. Janssen, and A. Untch, 2010: Increased resolution in the ECMWF deterministic and ensemble prediction systems. ECMWF Newsletter, No. 124, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 10–16.
Vitart, F., and F. Molteni, 2011: Simulation of the Madden–Julian oscillation and its impact over Europe in ECMWF’s monthly forecasts. ECMWF Newsletter, No. 126, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 12–17.
Wang, X., C. Snyder, and T. M. Hamill, 2007: On the theoretical equivalence of differently proposed ensemble–3DVAR hybrid analysis schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 222–227.
The computation of the equivalent grid spacing for a given triangular truncation can be somewhat ambiguous. A nominal equivalent grid spacing depends on whether the model forecast is transformed from its spectral basis to a linear or to a Gaussian grid. A truncation at wavenumber M on a linear grid (ECMWF’s approach) uses 2M + 1 grid points around a latitude circle; a Gaussian grid (NCEP’s approach) uses 3M + 1 grid points. Use of the Gaussian grid eliminates aliasing errors during the computation of the products of two or more truncated spectral harmonic expansions but otherwise does not provide a finer discretization and more resolution. For more information, see Durran (1998, section 4.4.3). The equivalent grid spacing calculations here assume 111 kilometers per degree × cos(latitude) for the number of kilometers per degree at a given latitude.