the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Bias Correction Scheme for FY-3E/ HIRAS-II Observation Data Assimilation
Abstract. Meteorological satellite data have been extensively utilized in global numerical weather prediction systems and have a positive impact to improve forecast accuracy. In order to correctly assimilate satellite radiance observations in data assimilation systems, the systematic observation biases must be corrected to conform to a Gaussian normal distribution with a mean of 0. By selecting appropriate air-mass predictors through correlation assessment, a two-step bias correction scheme (namely the scan-angle bias correction and the air-mass bias correction) is established in this paper based on radiation observations of FY-3E/ HIRAS-II from 1 to 31 January 2023. The results indicate that FY-3E/HIRAS-II O-B (observation-simulation) bias exhibits scanning angle bias dependence from nadir to limb field of view. Statistics have found that this scanning angle bias does not depend on latitude band. After scan-angle bias correction using statistical scan-angle correction coefficients, the dependence of the O-B biases on the scan angle can be eliminated. The second step is to perform air-mass correction. Our correction scheme is compared with the air-mass bias correction scheme in NCEP-GSI. Although the scan angle influence is also considered in NECP-GSI scheme, it does not account for the water vapor effect in the atmosphere. Consequently, the correction effect is not good for channels with lower peak height of weighting function, resulting in a slightly residual positive bias after correction. The combination of air-mass predictors (model surface skin temperature, model total column water vapor, thickness of 1000–300 hPa, and thickness of 200–50 hPa) selected through importance assessment in this study effectively eliminates the air-mass biases. The systematic biases between observed brightness temperature and background simulated brightness temperature from background atmospheric field for all HIRAS-II channels significantly decrease after bias correction, and the bias distribution essentially follows a Gaussian normal distribution with a mean of 0. The bias correction scheme has a significant improvement for the analysis at upper air and near surface.
- Preprint
(3325 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
AC1: 'corrigendum', Hongtao Chen, 19 Dec 2024
This comment aims to correct an error in Part 6.3. Line 370-378. The analysis is verified against the NCEP FNL (Final) 0.25° × 0.25° analysis data for each experiment, not ERA5.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-65-AC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-65', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jan 2025
My review is attached as a PDF document.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-65-RC1-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hongtao Chen, 16 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-65/amt-2024-65-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Hongtao Chen, 16 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-65/amt-2024-65-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hongtao Chen, 16 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-65', Folkert Boersma, 09 May 2025
Review of ‘A bias correction scheme for FY-3E/HIRAS-II observation data assimilation’ by Chen and Guan.
Chen and Guan address biases between FY-3E/HIRAS-II thermal infrared radiances and model-simulated radiances. They propose two correction steps: (1) a scan-angle bias correction, which effectively removes a systematic viewing-angle dependent discrepancy, and (2) an air-mass bias correction using four predictors correlated with observation-minus-background (O–B) differences. While both corrections reduce bias, the underlying causes and physical interpretations remain insufficiently explained.
Major issues
- Scan-angle bias origin unclear.
The paper shows a clear scan-angle bias in HIRAS-II data but does not clarify whether this originates from the satellite sensor, the radiative transfer model (e.g., RRTOV), or atmospheric mismatches between observations and simulations. Given that TOA radiances naturally depend on viewing angle (due to path length, surface emission angle-dependence, and atmospheric heterogeneity), the authors should systematically analyze and discuss these potential causes. - Air-mass bias concept not well defined.
The introduction should better distinguish scan-angle bias (instrumental/geometric) from air-mass bias (systematic model error in representing specific air mass types). The use of predictors to correct O–B needs a clearer explanation: what physical aspects are being corrected—surface temperature, tropospheric composition, or something else? - Inconsistent description of data assimilation setup.
The abstract mentions NCEP-GSI, but the experiments use WRFDA v4.4. This inconsistency must be resolved. Also, the timeline of the assimilation period is contradictory (17–31 August vs. 1–31 August 2023). This needs clarification to maintain credibility. - Lack of physical explanation for air-mass correction.
The correlation between the chosen predictors and O–B is shown, but there is no justification for why these predictors lead to better TOA radiance simulation. The study would benefit from showing how the air-mass correction improves key state variables (e.g., surface T, pressure, or humidity) and thereby reduces bias.
Minor corrections:
Title: FY-3E/HIRAS-II (no space after /)
L26: “satellite radiations” --> satellite radiance.
L34-35: “The satellite launched …time window”. This sentence is unclear. FY-3E has an early morning overpass, so how would this fill a time gap within a 6-hour assimilation window? IASI also has a morning overpass.
L46: “destroying the global NWP system” … this is oddly phrased. The system will surely not be destroyed, but the model state may be negatively influenced when biases persist in satellite observations. This should be rephrased.
L108: Period missing after Saunders-reference.
L135: “exceeds”--> exceeding
L148: rephrase to ‘For each channel, the global …position is calculated as:’
L300: “The scatters” --> The scatter
L380: the colour bar in Figure 7 is unfortunate with green hue indicating no bias. Suggest to use a cold-white-warm colour scheme, where white corresponds to zero bias.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-65-RC2 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Hongtao Chen, 19 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-65/amt-2024-65-AC4-supplement.pdf
- Scan-angle bias origin unclear.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
287 | 92 | 89 | 468 | 36 | 35 |
- HTML: 287
- PDF: 92
- XML: 89
- Total: 468
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1