Use of a Mixed-Layer Model to Investigate Problems in Operational Prediction of Return Flow

John M. Lewis National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma, and Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada

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

Abstract

Inaccuracy in the numerical prediction of the moisture content of return-flow air over the Gulf of Mexico continues to plague operational forecasters. At the Environmental Modeling Center/National Centers for Environmental Prediction in the United States, the prediction errors have exhibited bias—typically too dry in the early 1990s and too moist from the mid-1990s to present. This research explores the possible sources of bias by using a Lagrangian formulation of the classic mixed-layer model. Justification for use of this low-order model rests on careful examination of the upper-air thermodynamic structure in a well-observed event during the Gulf of Mexico Experiment. The mixed-layer constraints are shown to be appropriate for the first phase of return flow, namely, the northerly-flow or outflow phase. The theme of the research is estimation of sensitivity—change in the model output (at termination of outflow) in response to inaccuracies or uncertainties in the elements of the control vector (the initial conditions, the boundary conditions, and the physical and empirical parameters). The first stage of research explores this sensitivity through a known analytic solution to a reduced form of the mixed-layer equations. Numerically calculated sensitivity (via Runge–Kutta integration of the equations) is compared to the exact values and found to be most credible. Further, because the first- and second-order terms in the solution about the base state can be found exactly for the analytic case, the degree of nonlinearity in the dynamical system can be determined. It is found that the system is “weakly nonlinear”; that is, solutions that result from perturbations to the control vector are well approximated by the first-order terms in the Taylor series expansion. This bodes well for the sensitivity analysis. The second stage of research examines sensitivity for the general case that includes moisture and imposed subsidence. Results indicate that uncertainties in the initial conditions are significant, yet they are secondary to uncertainties in the boundary conditions and physical/empirical parameters. The sea surface temperatures and associated parameters, the saturation mixing ratio at the sea surface and the turbulent transfer coefficient, exert the most influence on the moisture forecast. Uncertainty in the surface wind speed is also shown to be a major source of systematic error in the forecast. By assuming errors in the elements of the control vector that reflect observational error and uncertainties in the parameters, the bias error in the moisture forecast is estimated. These bias errors are significantly greater than random errors as explored through Monte Carlo experiments. Bias errors of 1–2 g kg−1 in the moisture forecast are possible through a variety of systematic errors in the control vector. The sensitivity analysis also makes it clear that judiciously chosen incorrect specifications of the elements can offset each other and lead to a good moisture forecast. The paper ends with a discussion of research approaches that hold promise for improved operational forecasts of moisture in return-flow events.

Corresponding author address: John Lewis, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Norman, OK 73072. Email: jlewis@dri.edu

Abstract

Inaccuracy in the numerical prediction of the moisture content of return-flow air over the Gulf of Mexico continues to plague operational forecasters. At the Environmental Modeling Center/National Centers for Environmental Prediction in the United States, the prediction errors have exhibited bias—typically too dry in the early 1990s and too moist from the mid-1990s to present. This research explores the possible sources of bias by using a Lagrangian formulation of the classic mixed-layer model. Justification for use of this low-order model rests on careful examination of the upper-air thermodynamic structure in a well-observed event during the Gulf of Mexico Experiment. The mixed-layer constraints are shown to be appropriate for the first phase of return flow, namely, the northerly-flow or outflow phase. The theme of the research is estimation of sensitivity—change in the model output (at termination of outflow) in response to inaccuracies or uncertainties in the elements of the control vector (the initial conditions, the boundary conditions, and the physical and empirical parameters). The first stage of research explores this sensitivity through a known analytic solution to a reduced form of the mixed-layer equations. Numerically calculated sensitivity (via Runge–Kutta integration of the equations) is compared to the exact values and found to be most credible. Further, because the first- and second-order terms in the solution about the base state can be found exactly for the analytic case, the degree of nonlinearity in the dynamical system can be determined. It is found that the system is “weakly nonlinear”; that is, solutions that result from perturbations to the control vector are well approximated by the first-order terms in the Taylor series expansion. This bodes well for the sensitivity analysis. The second stage of research examines sensitivity for the general case that includes moisture and imposed subsidence. Results indicate that uncertainties in the initial conditions are significant, yet they are secondary to uncertainties in the boundary conditions and physical/empirical parameters. The sea surface temperatures and associated parameters, the saturation mixing ratio at the sea surface and the turbulent transfer coefficient, exert the most influence on the moisture forecast. Uncertainty in the surface wind speed is also shown to be a major source of systematic error in the forecast. By assuming errors in the elements of the control vector that reflect observational error and uncertainties in the parameters, the bias error in the moisture forecast is estimated. These bias errors are significantly greater than random errors as explored through Monte Carlo experiments. Bias errors of 1–2 g kg−1 in the moisture forecast are possible through a variety of systematic errors in the control vector. The sensitivity analysis also makes it clear that judiciously chosen incorrect specifications of the elements can offset each other and lead to a good moisture forecast. The paper ends with a discussion of research approaches that hold promise for improved operational forecasts of moisture in return-flow events.

Corresponding author address: John Lewis, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Norman, OK 73072. Email: jlewis@dri.edu

Save
  • Breaker, L. C., D. B. Gilhousen, and L. D. Burroughs, 1998: Preliminary results from long-term measurements of atmospheric moisture in the marine boundary layer in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 15 , 661676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burk, S., and W. Thompson, 1992: Airmass modification over the Gulf of Mexico: Mesoscale model and airmass transformation model forecasts. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 925937.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crisp, C., and J. Lewis, 1992: Return flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Part I: A classificatory approach with a global perspective. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 868881.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deardorff, J., G. Willis, and D. Lilly, 1969: Laboratory investigation of non-steady penetrative convection. J. Fluid Mech., 35 , 731.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Driedonks, A., 1982: Sensitivity analysis of the equations for a convective mixed layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 22 , 475480.

  • Errico, R., 1997: What is an adjoint model? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 25772591.

  • Fredrickson, S., and J. Lewis, 1994: Examination of SST analyses over the Loop Current during a return-flow episode. Mar. Tech. Soc. J., 28 , 3344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamilton, G., 1986: National Data Buoy Center programs. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 67 , 411415.

  • Henry, W., 1979a: Some aspects of the fate of cold fronts in the Gulf of Mexico. Mon. Wea. Rev., 107 , 10781082.

  • Henry, W., 1979b: An arbitrary method of separating tropical air from “return flow” polar air. Natl. Wea. Dig., 4 , 2226.

  • Janish, P., and S. Lyons, 1992: NGM performance during cold-air outbreaks and periods of return flow over the Gulf of Mexico with emphasis on moisture-field evolution. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 909924.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Janjic, Z., 1994: The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122 , 927945.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Janjic, Z., 2001: Nonsingular implementation of the Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 scheme in the NCEP/EMC meso model. NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC Office Note 437, 61 pp.

  • Kondo, J., 1975: Air-sea bulk transfer coefficients in diabatic conditions. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 9 , 91112.

  • Lewis, J., and C. Crisp, 1992: Return flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Part II: Variability of return flow thermodynamics inferred from trajectories over the Gulf. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 882898.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, J., C. Hayden, R. Merrill, and J. Schneider, 1989: GUFMEX: A study of return flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 70 , 2429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, J., W. Martin, and N. Guinasso, 1997: Bowen ratio estimates in return flow over the Gulf of Mexico. J. Geophys. Res., 102 , C5. 1053510544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, J., K. Raeder, and R. Errico, 2001: Vapor flux associated with return flow over the Gulf of Mexico: A sensitivity study using adjoint modeling. Tellus, 53A , 7493.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lilly, D., 1968: Models of cloud-topped mixed layers under a strong inversion. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 94 , 292309.

  • Lilly, D., 1987: Mixed layers and penetrative convection. Transcription of Lectures, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 6 pp. [Available from John Lewis, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Norman, OK 73072.].

  • Liu, Q., J. M. Lewis, and J. M. Schneider, 1992: A study of cold-air modification over the Gulf of Mexico using in situ data and mixed-layer modeling. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 909924.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manikin, G., 1998: Update on Eta return flow tests. Environmental Modeling Center/National Center for Environmental Prediction Internal Memo., 21 pp. [Available from John Lewis, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Norman, OK 73072.].

  • Manikin, G., K. Mitchell, B. Ferrier, and S. Weiss, 2002: Low level moisture in the Eta Model: An update. Preprints, 21st Conf. on Severe Local Storms, San Antonio, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 615–618.

  • Manton, M., 1980: On the modelling of mixed layers and entrainment in cumulus clouds. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 19 , 337358.

  • McLain, E., W. Pichel, and C. Watson, 1985: Comparative performance of AVHRR-based sea surface temperatures. J. Geophys. Res., 90 , C6. 1158711601.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panofsky, H., and J. Dutton, 1984: Atmospheric Turbulence: Models and Methods for Engineering Applications. John Wiley and Sons, 397 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Press, W., S. Teukolsky, W. Vettering, and B. Flannery, 1992: Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing. 2d ed. Cambridge University Press, 963 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saucier, W., 1955: Principles of Meteorological Analysis. University of Chicago Press, 438 pp.

  • Stage, S., and J. Businger, 1981: A model for entrainment into a cloud-topped marine boundary layer. Part I: Development of a model and application to a cold air outbreak episode. J. Atmos. Sci., 38 , 22132229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strong, A., and E. McLain, 1984: Improved ocean surface temperature from space—Comparisons with drifting buoys. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65 , 138142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suomi, V., R. Fox, S. Limaye, and W. Smith, 1983: McIDAS III: A modern interactive data access and analysis system. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 22 , 766778.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tennekes, H., and A. Driedonks, 1981: Basic entrainment equations for the atmospheric boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 20 , 515529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weiss, S. J., 1992: Some aspects of forecasting severe thunderstorms during cool-season return-flow episodes. J. Appl. Meteor., 31 , 964982.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Willis, G., and J. Deardorff, 1975: Laboratory simulation of the convective boundary layer. Atmos. Technol., 7 , 8086.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 57 23 2
PDF Downloads 27 11 0