Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.154 IF 5.154
  • IF 5-year value: 5.697 IF 5-year
    5.697
  • CiteScore value: 5.56 CiteScore
    5.56
  • SNIP value: 1.761 SNIP 1.761
  • IPP value: 5.30 IPP 5.30
  • SJR value: 3.164 SJR 3.164
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 59 Scimago H
    index 59
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-148
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-148
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Methods for assessment of models 05 Jul 2016

Methods for assessment of models | 05 Jul 2016

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Geoscientific Model Development (GMD). The revised manuscript was not accepted.

Fundamentals of Data Assimilation

Peter Rayner1, Anna M. Michalak2, and Frédéric Chevallier3 Peter Rayner et al.
  • 1School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  • 2Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, USA
  • 3Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif sur Yvette, France

Abstract. This article lays out the fundamentals of data assimilation as used in biogeochemistry. It demonstrates that all of the methods in widespread use within the field are special cases of the underlying Bayesian formalism. Methods differ in the assumptions they make and information they provide on the probability distributions used in Bayesian calculations. It thus provides a basis for comparison and choice among these methods. It also provides a standardised notation for the various quantities used in the field.

Peter Rayner et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Peter Rayner et al.
Peter Rayner et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 1,314 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
866 409 39 1,314 33 52
  • HTML: 866
  • PDF: 409
  • XML: 39
  • Total: 1,314
  • BibTeX: 33
  • EndNote: 52
Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2016)
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 25 Jun 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Numerical models are among our most important tools for understanding and prediction. Models include quantities or equations that we cannot verify directly. We learn about these unknowns by comparing model output with observations and using some algorithm to improve the inputs. We show here that the many methods for doing this are special cases of underlying statistics. This provides a unified way of comparing and contrasting such methods.
Numerical models are among our most important tools for understanding and prediction. Models...
Citation