• Bischof, C., A. Carle, G. Corliss, A. Griewank, and P. Hovland, 1992:ADIFOR—Generating derivative codes from Fortran programs. Sci. Program.,1, 11–29.

  • ——, G. D. Pusch, and R. Knoesel, 1996: Sensitivity analysis of the MM5 weather model using automatic differentiation. Comput. Phys.,10, 605–612.

  • Blumen, W., 1972: Geostrophic adjustment. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys.,10, 485–528.

  • Cacuci, D. G., 1988: The forward and adjoint methods of sensitivity analysis. Uncertainty Analysis, Y. Ronen, Ed., CRC Press, 71–144.

  • Carmichael, G. R., A. Sandu, and F. A. Potra, 1997: Sensitivity analysis for atmospheric chemistry models via automatic differentiation. Atmos. Environ.,31, 475–489.

  • Curic, M., and D. Janc, 1989: Sensitivity analysis of the 1-D convective cloud model outputs on the dynamical parameters. Theor. Appl. Climatol.,40, 237–246.

  • ——, and ——, 1993: Predictive capabilities of a one-dimensional convective cloud model with forced lifting and a new entrainment formulation. J. Appl. Meteor.,32, 1733–1740.

  • Dickinson, R. P., and R. J. Gelinas, 1976: Sensitivity analysis of ordinary differential equation systems—A direct method. J. Comput. Phys.,21, 123–143.

  • Errico, R. M., and T. Vukicevic, 1992: Sensitivity analysis using an adjoint of the PSU–NCAR mesoscale model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,120, 1644–1660.

  • Ferrier, B. S., and R. A. Houze Jr., 1989: One-dimensional time-dependent modeling of GATE cumulonimbus convection. J. Atmos. Sci.,46, 330–352.

  • Goody, R., 1995: Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. Oxford University Press, 324 pp.

  • Haltiner, G. J., and R. T. Williams, 1980: Numerical Prediction and Dynamic Meteorology. 2d ed. John Wiley and Sons, 477 pp.

  • Holton, J. R., 1992: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. 3d ed. Academic Press, 507 pp.

  • Hwang, J.-T., E. P. Dougherty, S. Rabitz, and H. Rabitz, 1978: The Green function method of sensitivity analysis in chemical kinetics. J. Chem. Phys.,69, 5180–5191.

  • Ogura, Y., and T. Takahashi, 1971: Numerical simulation of the life cycle of a thunderstorm cell. Mon. Wea. Rev.,99, 895–911.

  • ——, and ——, 1973: The development of warm rain in a cumulus model. J. Atmos. Sci.,30, 262–277.

  • Park, S. K., 1996: Sensitivity analysis of deep convective storms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 245 pp. [Available from School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019.].

  • ——, and K. K. Droegemeier, 1995: On the use of automatic differentiation to assess parametric sensitivity in convective-scale variational data assimilation. Second Int. Symp. on Assimilation of Observations in Meteorology and Oceanography, Vol. 1, WMO/TD-No. 651, 111–116.

  • ——, and ——, 1997: Validity of the tangent linear approximation in a moist convective cloud model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 3320–3340.

  • ——, ——, C. Bischof, and T. Knauff, 1994: Sensitivity analysis of numerically-simulated convective storms using direct and adjoint methods. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Portland, OR, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 457–459.

  • Seigneur, C., T. W. Tesche, P. M. Roth, and L. E. Reid, 1981: Sensitivity of a complex urban air quality model to input data. J. Appl. Meteor.,20, 1020–1040.

  • Soong, S.-T., and Y. Ogura, 1973: A comparison between axisymmetric and slab-symmetric cumulus cloud models. J. Atmos. Sci.,30, 879–893.

  • Srivastava, R. C., 1985: A simple model of evaporatively driven downdraft: Application to microburst downdraft. J. Atmos. Sci.,42, 1004–1023.

  • ——, 1987: A model of intense downdrafts driven by the melting and evaporation of precipitation. J. Atmos. Sci.,44, 1752–1773.

  • Sykes, J. F., J. L. Wilson, and R. W. Andrews, 1985: Sensitivity analysis for steady state groundwater flow using adjoint operators. Water Resour. Res.,21, 359–371.

  • Wang, J. Y. C., 1983: A quasi-one-dimensional, time-dependent and non-precipitating cumulus cloud model: On the bimodal distribution of cumulus cloud height. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 651–664.

  • Wang, Z., K. K. Droegemeier, M. Xue, and S. K. Park, 1995: Sensitivity analysis of a 3-D compressible storm-scale model to input parameters. Second Int. Symp. on Assimilation of Observations in Meteorology and Oceanography, Vol. 1, WMO/TD-No. 651, 437–442.

  • Warner, T. T., and D. Keyser, 1984: Some practical insights into the relationship between initial state uncertainty and mesoscale predictability. Predictability of Fluid Motions, G. Holloway and B. J. West, Ed., American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Vol. 106, 271–286.

  • Weinstein, A. I., 1970: A numerical model of cumulus dynamics and microphysics. J. Atmos. Sci.,27, 246–255.

  • Wisner, C., H. D. Orville, and C. Myers, 1972: A numerical model of a hail-bearing cloud. J. Atmos. Sci.,29, 1160–1181.

  • Worley, B. A., E. M. Oblow, F. G. Pin, R. E. Maerker, J. E. Horwedel, R. Q. Wright, and J. L. Lucius, 1987: Deterministic methods for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in large-scale computer models. Proceedings of the Conference on Geostatistical, Sensitivity, and Uncertainty Methods for Ground-Water Flow and Radionuclide Transport Modeling, B. E. Buxton, Ed., Battelle-Press, 135–154.

  • Young, K. C., 1993: Microphysical Processes in Clouds. Oxford University Press, 427 pp.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 16 16 1
PDF Downloads 3 3 0

Sensitivity Analysis of a Moist 1D Eulerian Cloud Model Using Automatic Differentiation

View More View Less
  • 1 Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms and School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
© Get Permissions
Restricted access

Abstract

An automatic differentiation tool (ADIFOR) is applied to a warm-rain, time-dependent 1D cloud model to study the influence of input parameter variability, including that associated with the initial state as well as physical and computational parameters, on the dynamical evolution of a deep convective storm.

Storm dynamics are found to be controlled principally by changes in model initial states below 2 km; once perturbed, each grid variable in the model plays its own unique role in determining the dynamical evolution of the storm. Among all model-dependent variables, the low-level temperature field has the greatest impact on precipitation, followed by the water vapor field. Mass field perturbations inserted at upper levels induce prominent oscillations in the wind field, whereas a comparable wind perturbation has a negligible effect on the thermodynamic field. However, the wind field does influence the precipitation in a more complex way than does the thermodynamic field, principally via changes in time evolution.

The simulated storm responds to variations in three physical parameters (the autoconversion/accretion rate, cloud radius, and lateral eddy exchange coefficient) largely as expected, with the relative importance of each, quantified via a relative sensitivity analysis, being a strong function of the particular stage in the storm’s life cycle.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Seon Ki Park, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, Room 1110, Sarkeys Energy Center, 100 East Boyd, Norman, OK 73019.

Email: skpark@cmrp.ou.edu

Abstract

An automatic differentiation tool (ADIFOR) is applied to a warm-rain, time-dependent 1D cloud model to study the influence of input parameter variability, including that associated with the initial state as well as physical and computational parameters, on the dynamical evolution of a deep convective storm.

Storm dynamics are found to be controlled principally by changes in model initial states below 2 km; once perturbed, each grid variable in the model plays its own unique role in determining the dynamical evolution of the storm. Among all model-dependent variables, the low-level temperature field has the greatest impact on precipitation, followed by the water vapor field. Mass field perturbations inserted at upper levels induce prominent oscillations in the wind field, whereas a comparable wind perturbation has a negligible effect on the thermodynamic field. However, the wind field does influence the precipitation in a more complex way than does the thermodynamic field, principally via changes in time evolution.

The simulated storm responds to variations in three physical parameters (the autoconversion/accretion rate, cloud radius, and lateral eddy exchange coefficient) largely as expected, with the relative importance of each, quantified via a relative sensitivity analysis, being a strong function of the particular stage in the storm’s life cycle.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Seon Ki Park, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, Room 1110, Sarkeys Energy Center, 100 East Boyd, Norman, OK 73019.

Email: skpark@cmrp.ou.edu

Save