Article Type:
Research Article

The Dependence of Ensemble Dispersion on Analysis–Forecast Systems: Implications to Short-Range Ensemble Forecasting of Precipitation

Steven L. Mullen Department of Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Search for other papers by Steven L. Mullen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jun Du Department of Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Search for other papers by Jun Du in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Frederick Sanders Marblehead, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Frederick Sanders in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 1999
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<1674:TDOEDO>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1674–1686
Restricted access

Abstract

The impact of differences in analysis–forecast systems on dispersion of an ensemble forecast is examined for a case of cyclogenesis. Changes in the dispersion properties between two 25-member ensemble forecasts with different cumulus parameterization schemes and different initial analyses are compared. The statistical significance of the changes is assessed.

Error growth due to initial condition uncertainty depends significantly on the analysis–forecast system. Quantitative precipitation forecasts and probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts are extremely sensitive to the specification of physical parameterizations in the model. Regions of large variability tend to coincide with a high likelihood of parameterized convection. Analysis of other model fields suggests that those with relatively large energy in the mesoscale also exhibit highly significant differences in dispersion.

The results presented here provide evidence that the combined effect of uncertainties in model physics and the initial state provides a means to increase the dispersion of ensemble prediction systems, but care must be taken in the construction of mixed ensemble systems to ensure that other properties of the ensemble distribution are not overly degraded.

* Current affiliation: National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Steven L. Mullen, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, PAS Building #81, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Email: mullen@atmos.arizona.edu

Abstract

The impact of differences in analysis–forecast systems on dispersion of an ensemble forecast is examined for a case of cyclogenesis. Changes in the dispersion properties between two 25-member ensemble forecasts with different cumulus parameterization schemes and different initial analyses are compared. The statistical significance of the changes is assessed.

Error growth due to initial condition uncertainty depends significantly on the analysis–forecast system. Quantitative precipitation forecasts and probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts are extremely sensitive to the specification of physical parameterizations in the model. Regions of large variability tend to coincide with a high likelihood of parameterized convection. Analysis of other model fields suggests that those with relatively large energy in the mesoscale also exhibit highly significant differences in dispersion.

The results presented here provide evidence that the combined effect of uncertainties in model physics and the initial state provides a means to increase the dispersion of ensemble prediction systems, but care must be taken in the construction of mixed ensemble systems to ensure that other properties of the ensemble distribution are not overly degraded.

* Current affiliation: National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Steven L. Mullen, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, PAS Building #81, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Email: mullen@atmos.arizona.edu

Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Anderson, J. L., 1996: A method for producing and evaluating probabilistic precipitation forecasts from ensemble model integrations. J. Climate,9, 1518–1529.

  • ——, 1997: The impact of dynamical constraints on the selection of initial conditions for ensemble predictions: Low-order perfect model results. Mon. Wea. Rev,125, 2969–2983.

  • Anthes, R. A., 1977: A cumulus parameterization scheme utilizing a one-dimensional cloud model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,105, 963–984.

  • ——, 1986: The general question of predictability. Mesoscale Meteorology and Forecasting, P. S. Ray, Ed., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 636–656.

  • ——, E.-Y. Hsie, and Y.-H. Kuo, 1987: Description of the Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model Version 4 (MM4). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN 282+STR, 66 pp. [Available from National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.].

  • Arakawa, A., and W. H. Schubert, 1974: Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, Part I. J. Atmos. Sci.,31, 674–701.

  • Augustine, S. J., S. L. Mullen, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1991: Examination of actual analysis differences for use in Monte Carlo forecasting. Preprints, 16th Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop, Los Angeles, CA, NOAA/NWS/NMC/CAC, 375–378.

  • Blackadar, A. K., 1979: High resolution models of the planetary boundary layer. Advances in Environmental Science and Engineering, J. Pfafflin and E. Ziegler, Eds., Vol. 1, Gordon and Beach Science Publications, 50–85.

  • Bresch, J. F., and J.-W. Bao, 1996: Generation of mesoscale model ensemble members by varying model physics. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Norfolk, VA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 62–64.

  • Brooks, H. E., C. A. Doswell, and L. J. Wicker, 1993: STORMTIPE:A forecasting experiment using a three-dimensional cloud model. Wea. Forecasting,8, 352–362.

  • ——, M. S. Tracton, D. J. Stensrud, G. J. DiMego, and Z. Toth, 1995:Short-range ensemble forecasting (SREF): Report from a workshop. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,76, 1617–1624.

  • Buizza, R., 1997: Potential forecast skill of ensemble prediction and spread and skill distributions of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 99–119.

  • Cressman, G. P., 1959: An operational objective analysis system. Mon. Wea. Rev.,87, 367–374.

  • Crook, N. A., 1996: Sensitivity of moist convetion forced by boundary layer processes to low-level thermodynamic fields. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 1767–1785.

  • Daley, R., and T. Mayer, 1986: Estimates of global analysis error from the global weather experiment observational network. Mon. Wea. Rev.,114, 1642–1653.

  • Du, J., S. L. Mullen, and F. Sanders, 1997: Short-range ensemble forecasting of quantitative precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 2427–2459.

  • Epstein, E. S., 1969a: Stochastic dynamic prediction. Tellus,21, 739–759.

  • ——, 1969b: A scoring system for probability forecasts of ranked categories. J. Appl. Meteor.,8, 985–987.

  • Errico, R. M., 1983: A guide to transform software for non-linear normal-mode initialization of the NCAR Community Forecast Model. NCAR/TN-217+IA, 86 pp. [Available from the National Atmospheric Research Center, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.].

  • ——, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1987: Predictability experiments using a high-resolution limited-area model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,115, 488–504.

  • Fritsch, J. M., and Coauthors, 1998: Quantitative precipitation forecasting: Report of the Eighth Prospectus Development Team, U. S. Weather Research Program. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,79, 285–299.

  • Grell, G., Y.-H. Kuo, and R. Pasch, 1991: Semiprognostic tests of cumulus parameterization schemes in the middle latitudes. Mon. Wea. Rev.,119, 5–31.

  • Hamill, T. M., and S. J. Colucci, 1997: Verification of Eta-RSM short-range ensemble forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 1312–1327.

  • ——, and ——, 1998: Evaluation of Eta/RSM ensemble probabilistic precipitation forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 711–724.

  • Hoke, J. E., N. A. Phillips, G. J. DiMego, J. J. Tucillo, and J. G. Sela, 1989: The regional analysis and forecast system of the National Meterological Center. Wea. Forecasting,4, 323–334.

  • Hsie, E.-Y., R. A. Anthes, and D. Keyser, 1984: Numerical simulation of frontogenesis in a moist atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci.,41, 2581–2594.

  • Kuo, H. L., 1974: Further studies of the parameterization of the effect of cumulus convection on large-scale flow. J. Atmos. Sci.,31, 1232–1240.

  • ——, and R. J. Reed, 1988: Numerical simulation of an explosively deepening cyclone in the eastern Pacific. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2081–2105.

  • ——, and S. Low-Nam, 1990: Prediction of nine explosive cyclones over the western Atlantic with a regional model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 3–25.

  • Leith, C. E., 1974: Theoretical skill of Monte Carlo forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev.,102, 409–418.

  • Livezey, R. E., and W. Y. Chen, 1983: Statistical field significance and its determination by Monte Carlo techniques. Mon. Wea. Rev.,111, 46–59.

  • Lorenz, E. N., 1982: Atmospheric predictability experiments with a large numerical model. Tellus,34, 505–513.

  • Manning, K. W., and P. L. Haagenson, 1992: Data ingest and objective analysis for the PSU/NCAR modeling system: ProgramsDATAGRID and RAWINS. NCAR/TN 376+STR+IA, 209 pp. [Available from the National Atmospheric Research Center, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.].

  • Mass, C. F., and D. M. Schultz, 1993: The structure and evolution of a simulated midlatitude cyclone over land. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 889–917.

  • Molteni, F., T. N. Palmer, R. Buizza, and T. Pertroliagis, 1996: The ECMWF ensemble prediction system: Methodology and verification. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,122, 73–121.

  • Mullen, S. L., and D. P. Baumhefner, 1988: The sensitivity of numerical simulations of explosive oceanic cyclogenesis to changes in physical parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2289–2339.

  • ——, and ——, 1989: The impact of initial condition uncertainty on numerical simulations of large scale explosive cyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 2289–2329.

  • ——, and ——, 1994: Monte Carlo simulations of explosive cyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 1548–1567.

  • ——, and J. Du, 1994: Monte Carlo forecasts of explosive cyclogenesis with a limited-area, mesoscale model. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Portland, OR, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 638–640.

  • Murphy, A. H., 1971: A note on the Ranked Probability Score. J. Appl. Meteor.,10, 155–156.

  • Orlanski, I., and J. J. Katzfey, 1987: Sensitivity of model simulations for a coastal cyclone. Mon. Wea. Rev.,115, 2792–2821.

  • Palmer, T. N., 1995: The predictability of the atmosphere and oceans:From days to decades. Preprints, Decadal Climate Variability: Dynamics and Predictability, Les Houches, France, NATO Advance Study Institute, 84–181.

  • Powers, J. G., and R. J. Reed, 1993: Numerical simulation of the large-amplitude mesoscale gravity-wave event of 15 December 1987 in the central United States. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 2285–2308.

  • Preisendorfer, R. W., and T. Barnett, 1983: Numerical model-reality intercomparison tests using small-sample statistics. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 1884–1896.

  • Richardson, D. S., M. S. J. Harrison, K. B. Robertson, and A. P. Woodcock, 1996: Joint medium-range ensembles using UKMO, ECMWF, and NCEP ensemble systems. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Norfolk, VA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J26–J28.

  • Schaefer, J. T., 1990: The critical success index as an indicator of warning skill. Wea. Forecasting,5, 570–575.

  • Schneider, R. S., 1990: Large-amplitude mesoscale wave disturbances with the intense Midwestern extratropical cyclone of 15 December 1987. Wea. Forecasting,5, 533–558.

  • Spiegel, M. A., 1975: Probability and Statistics. McGraw-Hill, 372 pp.

  • Stamus, P. A., F. H. Carr, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1992: Application of a scale-separation verification technique to regional forecast models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,120, 149–163.

  • Stensrud, D. J., and J. M. Fritsch, 1994a: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environment. Part II: Generation of a mesoscale initial condition. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 2068–2083.

  • ——, and ——, 1994b: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environment. Part III: Numerical simulations and implications for operational forecasting. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 2084–2104.

  • ——, H. E. Brooks, J. Du, M. S. Tracton, and E. Rogers, 1999: Using ensembles for short-range forecasting. Mon. Wea. Rev.,127, 433–446.

  • Toth, Z., and E. Kalnay, 1993: Ensemble forecasting at NMC: The generation of perturbations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,74, 2317–2330.

  • Tracton, M. S., R. Wobus, and Z. Toth, 1996: On the principles and operational utility ensemble prediction. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Norfolk, VA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J17–J18.

  • Tribbia, J. J., and D. P. Baumhefner, 1988: The reliability of improvements in deterministic short-range forecasts in the presence of initial state and modeling deficiencies. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2276–2288.

  • Wang, W., and N. L. Seaman, 1997: A comparison study of convective parameterization schemes in a mesoscale model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 252–278.

  • Warner, T. T., R. A. Peterson, and R. E. Treadon, 1997: A tutorial on lateral boundary conditions as a basic and potentially serious limitation to regional numerical weather prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,78, 2599–2617.

  • Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, 467 pp.

  • Williamson, D. L., J. T. Kiehl, V. Ramanathan, R. E. Dickinson, and J. J. Hack, 1987: Description of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCMM1). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-285+STR, 112 pp. [Available from National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.].

  • Xu, K.-M., 1993: Cumulus ensemble simulation. The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical Models, Meteor. Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 221–235.

  • Zhang, D.-L., and R. A. Anthes, 1982: A high-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer-sensitivity tests and comparisons with SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor.,21, 1594–1609.

  • ——, E.-Y. Hsie, and M. W. Moncrieff, 1988: A comparison of explicit and implicit prediction of convective and stratiform precipitating weather systems with a meso-β scale numerical model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,114, 31–60.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 127 42 3
PDF Downloads 61 14 2