Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Using Initial Condition and Model Physics Perturbations in Short-Range Ensemble Simulations of Mesoscale Convective Systems

David J. Stensrud NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by David J. Stensrud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jian-Wen Bao Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jian-Wen Bao in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Thomas T. Warner University of Colorado, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Thomas T. Warner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 2000
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<2077:UICAMP>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
2077–2107
Restricted access

Abstract

Two separate numerical model ensembles are created by using model configurations with different model physical process parameterization schemes and identical initial conditions, and by using different model initial conditions from a Monte Carlo approach and the identical model configuration. Simulations from these two ensembles are investigated for two 48-h periods during which large, long-lived mesoscale convective systems develop. These two periods are chosen because, in some respects, they span the range of convective forecast problems routinely handled by operational forecasters.

Calculations of the root-mean-square error, equitable threat score, and ranked probability score from both ensembles indicate that the model physics ensemble is more skillful than the initial-condition ensemble when the large-scale forcing for upward motion is weak. When the large-scale forcing for upward motion is strong, the initial-condition ensemble is more skillful than the model physics ensemble. This result is consistent with the expectation that model physics play a larger role in model simulations when the large-scale signal is weak and the assumptions used within the model parameterization schemes largely determine the evolution of the simulated weather events.

The variance from the two ensembles is created at significantly different rates, with the variance in the physics ensemble being produced two to six times faster during the first 12 h than the variance in the initial-condition ensemble. Therefore, within a very brief time period, the variance from the physics ensemble often greatly exceeds that produced by the initial-condition ensemble. These results suggest that varying the model physics is a potentially powerful method to use in creating an ensemble. In essence, by using different model configurations, the systematic errors of the individual ensemble members are different and, hence, this may allow one to determine a probability density function from this ensemble that is more diffuse than can be accomplished using a single model configuration.

Corresponding author address: Dr. David J. Stensrud, NSSL, 1313 Halley Circle, Norman, OK 73069.

Abstract

Two separate numerical model ensembles are created by using model configurations with different model physical process parameterization schemes and identical initial conditions, and by using different model initial conditions from a Monte Carlo approach and the identical model configuration. Simulations from these two ensembles are investigated for two 48-h periods during which large, long-lived mesoscale convective systems develop. These two periods are chosen because, in some respects, they span the range of convective forecast problems routinely handled by operational forecasters.

Calculations of the root-mean-square error, equitable threat score, and ranked probability score from both ensembles indicate that the model physics ensemble is more skillful than the initial-condition ensemble when the large-scale forcing for upward motion is weak. When the large-scale forcing for upward motion is strong, the initial-condition ensemble is more skillful than the model physics ensemble. This result is consistent with the expectation that model physics play a larger role in model simulations when the large-scale signal is weak and the assumptions used within the model parameterization schemes largely determine the evolution of the simulated weather events.

The variance from the two ensembles is created at significantly different rates, with the variance in the physics ensemble being produced two to six times faster during the first 12 h than the variance in the initial-condition ensemble. Therefore, within a very brief time period, the variance from the physics ensemble often greatly exceeds that produced by the initial-condition ensemble. These results suggest that varying the model physics is a potentially powerful method to use in creating an ensemble. In essence, by using different model configurations, the systematic errors of the individual ensemble members are different and, hence, this may allow one to determine a probability density function from this ensemble that is more diffuse than can be accomplished using a single model configuration.

Corresponding author address: Dr. David J. Stensrud, NSSL, 1313 Halley Circle, Norman, OK 73069.

Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Anthes, R. A., 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 MMM Division, NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • 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, J. A., and K. W. Howard, 1988: Mesoscale convective complexes over the United States during 1985. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 685–701.

  • 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.

  • Barnes, S. L., 1964: A technique for maximizing details in numerical weather map analysis. J. Appl. Meteor.,3, 396–409.

  • Baumhefner, D. P., 1984: Analysis and forecast intercomparisons using the FGGE SOP1 data base. Proceedings of the First National Workshop on the Global Weather Experiment, Vol. 2, Part I, National Academy Press, 228–246.

  • Benjamin, S. G., and N. L. Seaman, 1985: A simple scheme for objective analysis in curved flow. Mon. Wea. Rev.,113, 1184–1198.

  • Betts, A. K., and M. J. Miller, 1986: A new convective adjustment scheme. Part II: Single column tests using GATE wave, BOMEX, ATEX and arctic air-mass data sets. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,112, 693–709.

  • Blackadar, A. K., 1976: Modeling the nocturnal boundary layer. Preprints, Third Symp. on Atmospheric Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Quality, Raleigh, NC, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 46–49.

  • ——, 1979: High resolution models of the planetary boundary layer. Advances in Environmental Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, J. Pfafflin and E. Ziegler, Eds., Gordon and Breach, 50–85.

  • 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.

  • ——, and T. N. Palmer, 1995: The singular-vector structure of the atmospheric general circulation. J. Atmos. Sci.,52, 1434–1456.

  • ——, A. Hollingsworth, F. Lalaurette, and A. Ghelli, 1999a: Probabilistic predictions of precipitation using the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Wea. Forecasting,14, 168–189.

  • ——, M. Miller, and T. N. Palmer, 1999b: Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,125, 2887–2908.

  • Burk, S. D., and W. T. Thompson 1989: A vertically nested regional numerical weather prediction model with second-order closure physics. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 2305–2324.

  • Chang, J.-T., and P. J. Wetzel, 1991: Effects of spatial variations of soil moisture and vegetation on the evolution of a pre-storm environment: A numerical case study. Mon. Wea. Rev.,119, 1368–1390.

  • 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.

  • Dudhia, J., 1993: A nonhydrostatic version of the Penn State–NCAR mesoscale model: Validation tests and simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold front. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 1493–1513.

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

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

  • Fritsch, J. M., and C. F. Chappell, 1980: Numerical prediction of convectively driven mesoscale pressure systems. Part I: Convective parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci.,37, 1722–1733.

  • ——, R. J. Kane, and C. R. Chelius, 1986: The contribution of mesoscale convective weather systems to the warm-season precipitation in the United States. J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,25, 1333–1345.

  • Gallus, W. A., Jr., and J. F. Bresch, 1997: An intense small-scale wintertime vortex in the midwest United States. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 2787–2807.

  • Grell, G. A., 1993: Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 764–787.

  • ——, J. Dudhia, and D. R. Stauffer, 1994: A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR/TN-398+STR, 121 pp. [Available from MMM Division, NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • Gyakum, J. R., 1983: On the evolution of the QE II storm. II: Dynamic and thermodynamic structure. Mon. Wea. Rev.,111, 1156–1173.

  • Hamill, T. M., 1997: Short-range ensemble forecasting using the Eta/RSM forecast models. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 216 pp [Available from UMI Dissertation Services, 300 N. Zeeb Rd., P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346.].

  • ——, 1999: Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting,14, 155–167.

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

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

  • ——, and ——, 1998b: Perturbations to the land-surface condition in short-range ensemble forecasts. Preprints, 12th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 273–276.

  • Harrison, M. S. J., T. N. Palmer, D. S. Richardson, and R. Buizza, 1999: Analysis and model dependencies in medium-range ensembles: Two transplant case studies. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,125, 2487–2516.

  • Heideman, K. F., and J. M. Fritsch, 1988: Forcing mechanisms and other characteristics of significant summertime precipitation. Wea. Forecasting,3, 115–130.

  • Houtekamer, P. L., and J. Derome, 1995: Methods for ensemble prediction. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 2181–2196.

  • ——, and L. Lefaivre, 1997: Using ensemble forecasts for model verification. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 2416–2426.

  • ——, ——, J. Derome, H. Ritchie, and H. L. Mitchell, 1996: A system simulation approach to ensemble prediction. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 1225–1242.

  • Johnson, R. H., and P. J. Hamilton, 1988: The relationship of surface pressure features to the precipitation and air flow structure of an intense midlatitude squall line. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 1444–1472.

  • Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch, 1990: A one-dimensional entraining/detraining plume model and its application in convective parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci.,47, 2784–2802.

  • ——, and ——, 1992: The role of the convective “trigger function” in numerical forecasts of mesoscale convective systems. Meteor. Atmos. Phys.,49, 93–106.

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

  • Lorenz, E. N., 1963: Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmos. Sci.,20, 130–141.

  • Maddox, R. A., 1980: Mesoscale convective complexes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,61, 1374–1387.

  • Marshall, C. H., K. C. Crawford, K. E. Mitchell, D. J. Stensrud, and F. H. Carr, 1999: Evaluation of the new land-surface and planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes in the NCEP Mesoscale Eta Model using Oklahoma Mesonet observations. Preprints, 14th Conf. on Hydrology, Dallas, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 265–268.

  • Mason, I., 1989: Dependence of the critical success index on sample climate and threshold probability. Aust. Meteor. Mag.,37, 75–81.

  • Meitin, J. G., Jr., and J. B. Cunning, 1986: The Oklahoma–Kansas preliminary regional experiment for STORM-Central (OK PRE-STORM). Volume I: Daily operations summary. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ESG-20, 313 pp.

  • Molteni, F., R. Buizza, T. N. Palmer, and T. Petroliagis, 1996: The ECMWF ensemble prediction system: Methodology and validation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,122, 73–119.

  • Mullen, S. L., and D. P. Baumhefner, 1988: Sensitivity to numerical simulations of explosive oceanic cyclogenesis to changes in physical parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2289–2329.

  • ——, and ——, 1989: The impact of initial condition uncertainty on numerical simulations of large-scale explosive cyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 2800–2821.

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

  • Murphy, J. M., 1988: The impact of ensemble forecasts on predictability. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,114, 463–494.

  • NOAA, 1985: Storm Data. Vol. 27, No. 5, 66 pp. [Available from National Climatic Data Center, Environmental Data and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC 28801.].

  • Palmer, T. N., R. Mureau, and F. Molteni, 1990: The Monte Carlo forecast. Weather,45, 198–207.

  • ——, F. Molteni, R. Mureau, R. Buizza, P. Chapelet, and J. Tribbia, 1992: Ensemble prediction. ECMWF Research Department Tech. Memo. 188, 45 pp.

  • ——, R. Gelaro, J. Barkmeijer, and R. Buizza, 1998: Singular vectors, metrics, and adaptive observations. J. Atmos. Sci.,55, 633–653.

  • Persson, A., 1996: Forecast error and inconsistency in medium range weather prediction. Preprints, 13th Conf. on Probability and Statistics, San Francisco, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 253–259.

  • Preisendorfer, R. W., and T. P. 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.

  • Rogers, E., D. G. Deaven, and G. J. DiMego, 1995: The regional analysis system for the operational “early” eta model: Original 80-km configuration and recent changes. Wea. Forecasting,10, 810–825.

  • Spencer, P. L., and D. J. Stensrud, 1998: Simulating flash flood events:Importance of the subgrid representation of convection. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 2884–2912.

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

  • ——, and ——, 1994b: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environments. 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.

  • Thompson, P. D., 1977: How to improve accuracy by combining independent forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev.,105, 228–229.

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

  • ——, and ——, 1997: Ensemble forecasting at NCEP and the breeding method. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 3297–3319.

  • ——, Y. Zhu, T. Marchok, M. S. Tracton, and E. Kalnay, 1998: Verification of the NCEP global ensemble forecasts. Preprints, 12th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 286–289.

  • 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.

  • Vislocky, R. L., and J. M. Fritsch, 1995: Improved model output statistics forecasts through model concensus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,76, 1157–1164.

  • Vukicevic, T., 1993: Possibility of skill forecast based on the finite-time dominant linear solutions for a primitive equation regional forecast model. J. Atmos. Sci.,50, 1777–1791.

  • Wallace, J. M., 1975: Diurnal variations in precipitation and thunderstorm frequency over the conterminous United States. Mon. Wea. Rev.,103, 406–419.

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

  • Whitaker, J. S., and A. F. Loughe, 1998: The relationship between ensemble spread and ensemble mean skill. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 3292–3302.

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

  • Zhang, D.-L., 1989: The effect of parameterized ice microphysics on the simulation of vortex circulation with a mesoscale hydrostatic model. Tellus,41A, 132–147.

  • ——, 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.

  • ——, and J. M. Fritsch, 1986: Numerical simulation of the meso-ß scale structure and evolution of the 1977 Johnstown flood. Part I: Model description and verification. J. Atmos. Sci.,43, 1913–1943.

  • ——, K. Gao, and D. B. Parsons, 1989: Numerical simulation of an intense squall line during 10–11 June 1985 PRE-STORM. Part I: Model verification. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 960–994.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 3216 1854 115
PDF Downloads 956 150 16