Should We Conserve Entropy or Energy when Computing CAPE with Mixed-Phase Precipitation Physics?

John M. Peters aDepartment of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by John M. Peters in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The rapidly increasing resolution of global atmospheric reanalysis and climate model datasets necessitates finding methods for computing convective available potential energy (CAPE) both efficiently and accurately. To this end, this article compares two common methods for computing CAPE which conserve either energy or entropy. Inaccuracies in these computations arise from both physical and numerical errors. For instance, computing CAPE with entropy conserved results in physical errors from nonequilibrium phase transitions but minimizes numerical errors because solutions are analytic at each height. In contrast, computing CAPE with energy conserved avoids these physical errors, but accumulates numerical errors that are grid-resolution-dependent because the numerical integration of a differential equation is required. Analysis of CAPE computed with large databases of soundings from the tropical Amazon and midlatitude storm environments shows that physical errors from the entropy method are typically 1%–3% as large as CAPE, which is comparable to the numerical errors from conserving energy with grid spacing of 25 and 250 m using explicit first-order and second-order integration schemes, respectively. Errors in entropy-based CAPE calculations are also insensitive to vertical grid spacing, in contrast to energy-based calculations whose error strongly scales with the grid spacing. It is shown that entropy-based methods are advantageous when intercomparing datasets with differing vertical resolution because they produce accurate and reasonably fast results that are insensitive to grid resolution, whereas a second-order energy-based method is advantageous when analyzing data with a consistent vertical resolution because of its superior computational efficiency.

Significance Statement

Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is a measure of instability in the atmosphere that helps forecasters and researchers understand when and where thunderstorms will form. The purpose of this article is to identify the most efficient and accurate methods for computing CAPE. Two methods are considered here, one that relates to the entropy (a measure of thermodynamic disorder) of an air parcel and one that relates to the energy of an air parcel. Results indicate that the entropy method is most accurate and insensitive to the resolution of the data used for the calculation (which can vary considerably), whereas the energy method uses the least computation time.

© 2024 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: John M. Peters, john.m.peters@psu.edu

Abstract

The rapidly increasing resolution of global atmospheric reanalysis and climate model datasets necessitates finding methods for computing convective available potential energy (CAPE) both efficiently and accurately. To this end, this article compares two common methods for computing CAPE which conserve either energy or entropy. Inaccuracies in these computations arise from both physical and numerical errors. For instance, computing CAPE with entropy conserved results in physical errors from nonequilibrium phase transitions but minimizes numerical errors because solutions are analytic at each height. In contrast, computing CAPE with energy conserved avoids these physical errors, but accumulates numerical errors that are grid-resolution-dependent because the numerical integration of a differential equation is required. Analysis of CAPE computed with large databases of soundings from the tropical Amazon and midlatitude storm environments shows that physical errors from the entropy method are typically 1%–3% as large as CAPE, which is comparable to the numerical errors from conserving energy with grid spacing of 25 and 250 m using explicit first-order and second-order integration schemes, respectively. Errors in entropy-based CAPE calculations are also insensitive to vertical grid spacing, in contrast to energy-based calculations whose error strongly scales with the grid spacing. It is shown that entropy-based methods are advantageous when intercomparing datasets with differing vertical resolution because they produce accurate and reasonably fast results that are insensitive to grid resolution, whereas a second-order energy-based method is advantageous when analyzing data with a consistent vertical resolution because of its superior computational efficiency.

Significance Statement

Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is a measure of instability in the atmosphere that helps forecasters and researchers understand when and where thunderstorms will form. The purpose of this article is to identify the most efficient and accurate methods for computing CAPE. Two methods are considered here, one that relates to the entropy (a measure of thermodynamic disorder) of an air parcel and one that relates to the energy of an air parcel. Results indicate that the entropy method is most accurate and insensitive to the resolution of the data used for the calculation (which can vary considerably), whereas the energy method uses the least computation time.

© 2024 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: John M. Peters, john.m.peters@psu.edu
Save
  • Arakawa, A., and W. H. Schubert, 1974: Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, Part I. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 674701, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031<0674:IOACCE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Betts, A. K., 1973: Non-precipitating cumulus convection and its parameterization. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 99, 178196, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709941915.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Betts, A. K., 1974: Further comments on “a comparison of the equivalent potential temperature and the static energy”. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 17131715, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031<1713:FCOCOT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bryan, G. H., and J. M. Fritsch, 2004: A reevaluation of ice–liquid water potential temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 24212431, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<2421:AROIWP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chavas, D. R., and J. Peters, 2023: Static energy deserves greater emphasis in the meteorology community. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 104, E1918E1927, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0013.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, R., and R. S. Thompson, 2014: Reversible CAPE in tropical cyclone tornado regimes. 27th Conf. Severe Local Storms, Madison, WI, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, https://ams.confex.com/ams/27SLS/webprogram/Paper254328.html.

  • Emanuel, K. A., 1991: A scheme for representing cumulus convection in large-scale models. J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 23132329, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1991)048<2313:ASFRCC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Emanuel, K. A., 1994: Atmospheric Convection. Oxford University Press, 588 pp.

  • Früh, B., and V. Wirth, 2007: Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) in mixed phase cloud conditions. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 561569, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fu, Q., and S. Hollars, 2004: Testing mixed-phase cloud water vapor parameterizations with SHEBA/FIRE–ACE observations. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 20832091, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<2083:TMCWVP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Igel, A. L., and S. C. van den Heever, 2021: Invigoration or enervation of convective clouds by aerosols? Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL093804, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093804.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Khairoutdinov, M. F., and D. A. Randall, 2003: Cloud resolving modeling of the ARM summer 1997 IOP: Model formulation, results, uncertainties, and sensitivities. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 607625, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060<0607:CRMOTA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Madden, R. A., and F. E. Robitaille, 1970: A comparison of the equivalent potential temperature and the static energy. J. Atmos. Sci., 27, 327329, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0327:ACOTEP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pauluis, O., and I. M. Held, 2002: Entropy budget of an atmosphere in radiative–convective equilibrium. Part II: Latent heat transport and moist processes. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 140149, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<0140:EBOAAI>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pauluis, O. M., and A. A. Mrowiec, 2013: Isentropic analysis of convective motions. J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 36733688, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0205.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, J. M., and D. R. Chavas, 2021: Evaluating the conservation of energy variables in simulations of deep moist convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 78, 32293246, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0351.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, J. M., J. P. Mulholland, and D. R. Chavas, 2022: Generalized lapse rate formulas for use in entraining CAPE calculations. J. Atmos. Sci., 79, 815836, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0118.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, J. M., D. R. Chavas, C.-Y. Su, H. Morrison, and B. E. Coffer, 2023a: An analytic formula for entraining CAPE in midlatitude storm environments. J. Atmos. Sci., 80, 21652186, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-23-0003.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, J. M., Z. J. Lebo, D. R. Chavas, and C.-Y. Su, 2023b: Entrainment makes pollution more likely to weaken deep convective updrafts than invigorate them. Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL103314, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pruppacher, H. R., and J. D. Klett, 2010: Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. Springer, 954 pp.

  • Riehl, H., and J. S. Malkus, 1958: On the heat balance in the equatorial trough zone. Geophysica, 6, 503538.

  • Romps, D. M., 2014: An analytical model for tropical relative humidity. J. Climate, 27, 74327449, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00255.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., 2015: MSE minus CAPE is the true conserved variable for an adiabatically lifted parcel. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 36393646, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0054.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., 2016a: Reply to “comments on ‘MSE minus cape is the true conserved variable for an adiabatically lifted parcel”’. J. Atmos. Sci., 73, 25772583, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0334.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., 2016b: The stochastic parcel model: A deterministic parameterization of stochastically entraining convection. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8, 319344, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., 2017: Exact expression for the lifting condensation level. J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 38913900, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0102.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., and Z. Kuang, 2010a: Do undiluted convective plumes exist in the upper troposphere? J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 468484, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3184.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Romps, D. M., and Z. Kuang, 2010b: Nature versus nurture in shallow convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 16551666, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3307.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saunders, P. M., 1957: The thermodynamics of saturated air: A contribution to the classical theory. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 83, 342350, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708335707.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Singh, M. S., and P. A. O’Gorman, 2013: Influence of entrainment on the thermal stratification in simulations of radiative-convective equilibrium. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 43984403, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50796.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, W.-Y., and O. M. Sun, 2015: Bernoulli equation and flow over a mountain. Geosci. Lett., 2, 7, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-015-0024-1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, W.-Y., and O. M. Sun, 2019: Revisiting the parcel method and CAPE. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans, 86, 134152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2019.03.008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thompson, R. L., R. Edwards, J. A. Hart, K. L. Elmore, and P. Markowski, 2003: Close proximity soundings within supercell environments obtained from the rapid update cycle. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 12431261, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2003)018<1243:CPSWSE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tremback, C. J., and R. J. Walko, 2017: Regional atmospheric modeling system, user’s guide – Introduction, version 6. 7 pp., https://vandenheever.atmos.colostate.edu/vdhpage/rams/docs/RAMS-Introduction.pdf.

  • Unidata, 2021: Integrated Data Viewer (IDV) version 3.1. UCAR/Unidata, https://doi.org/doi:10.5065/D6WW7G29.

  • Zhang, G. J., 2009: Effects of entrainment on convective available potential energy and closure assumptions in convection parameterization. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D07109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 658 658 189
Full Text Views 216 216 40
PDF Downloads 251 251 43