Linearization of Microphysical Parameterization Uncertainty Using Multiplicative Process Perturbation Parameters

Marcus van Lier-Walqui Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Marcus van Lier-Walqui in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Tomislava Vukicevic Hurricane Research Division, NOAA/AOML, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Tomislava Vukicevic in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Derek J. Posselt University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Search for other papers by Derek J. Posselt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Recent studies have shown the importance of accounting for model physics uncertainty within probabilistic forecasts. Attempts have been made at quantifying this uncertainty in terms of microphysical parameters such as fall speed coefficients, moments of hydrometeor particle size distributions, and hydrometeor densities. It has been found that uncertainty in terms of these “traditional” microphysical parameters is highly non-Gaussian, calling into question the possibility of estimating and propagating this error using Gaussian statistical techniques such as ensemble Kalman methods. Here, a new choice of uncertain control variables is proposed that instead considers uncertainty in individual modeled microphysical processes. These “process parameters” are multiplicative perturbations on contributions of individual modeled microphysical processes to hydrometeor time tendency. The new process parameters provide a natural and appealing choice for the quantification of aleatory microphysical parameterization uncertainty. Results of a nonlinear Monte Carlo parameter estimation experiment for these new process parameters are presented and compared with the results using traditional microphysical parameters as uncertain control variables. Both experiments occur within the context of an idealized one-dimensional simulation of moist convection, under the observational constraint of simulated radar reflectivity. Results indicate that the new process parameters have a more Gaussian character compared with traditional microphysical parameters, likely due to a more linear control on observable model evolution. In addition, posterior forecast distributions using the new control variables (process parameters) are shown to have less bias and variance. These results strongly recommend the use of the new process parameters for an ensemble Kalman-based estimation of microphysical parameterization uncertainty.

Corresponding author address: Marcus van Lier-Walqui, RSMAS, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy., Miami, FL 33130. E-mail: mvanlier-walqui@rsmas.miami.edu

Abstract

Recent studies have shown the importance of accounting for model physics uncertainty within probabilistic forecasts. Attempts have been made at quantifying this uncertainty in terms of microphysical parameters such as fall speed coefficients, moments of hydrometeor particle size distributions, and hydrometeor densities. It has been found that uncertainty in terms of these “traditional” microphysical parameters is highly non-Gaussian, calling into question the possibility of estimating and propagating this error using Gaussian statistical techniques such as ensemble Kalman methods. Here, a new choice of uncertain control variables is proposed that instead considers uncertainty in individual modeled microphysical processes. These “process parameters” are multiplicative perturbations on contributions of individual modeled microphysical processes to hydrometeor time tendency. The new process parameters provide a natural and appealing choice for the quantification of aleatory microphysical parameterization uncertainty. Results of a nonlinear Monte Carlo parameter estimation experiment for these new process parameters are presented and compared with the results using traditional microphysical parameters as uncertain control variables. Both experiments occur within the context of an idealized one-dimensional simulation of moist convection, under the observational constraint of simulated radar reflectivity. Results indicate that the new process parameters have a more Gaussian character compared with traditional microphysical parameters, likely due to a more linear control on observable model evolution. In addition, posterior forecast distributions using the new control variables (process parameters) are shown to have less bias and variance. These results strongly recommend the use of the new process parameters for an ensemble Kalman-based estimation of microphysical parameterization uncertainty.

Corresponding author address: Marcus van Lier-Walqui, RSMAS, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy., Miami, FL 33130. E-mail: mvanlier-walqui@rsmas.miami.edu
Save
  • Coddington, O., P. Pilewskie, and T. Vukicevic, 2012: The Shannon information content of hyperspectral shortwave cloud albedo measurements: Quantification and practical applications. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D04205, doi:10.1029/2011JD016771.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haario, H., E. Saksman, and J. Tamminen, 2001: An adaptive Metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli, 7 (2), 223242.

  • Haario, H., M. Laine, and A. Mira, 2006: DRAM: Efficient adaptive MCMC. Stat. Comput., 16, 339354.

  • Hastings, W., 1970: Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57 (1), 97–109.

  • Haynes, J. M., R. T. Marchand, Z. Luo, A. Bodas-Salcedo, and G. L. Stephens, 2007: A multipurpose radar simulator package: QuickBeam. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 17231727.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hodyss, D., 2011: Ensemble state estimation for nonlinear systems using polynomial expansions in the innovation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 35713588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kessler, E., III, 1969: On the Distribution and Continuity of Water Substance in Atmospheric Circulations. Meteor. Monogr., No. 32, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 46 pp.

  • Mardia, K. V., 1970: Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57 (3), 519530.

  • Metropolis, N., A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, and E. Teller, 1953: Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys., 21 (6), 1087, doi:10.1063/1.1699114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mira, A., 2001: On Metropolis–Hastings algorithms with delayed rejection. Metron,59 (3–4), 231–241.

  • Morrison, H., G. Thompson, and V. Tatarskii, 2009: Impact of cloud microphysics on the development of trailing stratiform precipitation in a simulated squall line: Comparison of one- and two-moment schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 9911007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posselt, D. J., and T. Vukicevic, 2010: Robust characterization of model physics uncertainty for simulations of deep moist convection. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 15131535.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posselt, D. J., and C. H. Bishop, 2012: Nonlinear parameter estimation: Comparison of an ensemble Kalman smoother with a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 19571974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posselt, D. J., T. S. L'Ecuyer, and G. L. Stephens, 2008: Exploring the error characteristics of thin ice cloud property retrievals using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D24206, doi:10.1029/2008JD010832.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shannon, C. E., 1948: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27, 379423, 623–656.

  • Sondergaard, T., and P. F. J. Lermusiaux, 2013: Data assimilation with Gaussian mixture models using the dynamically orthogonal field equations. Part I: Theory and scheme. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 17371760.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stensrud, D. J., J.-W. Bao, and T. T. Warner, 2000: Using initial condition and model physics perturbations in short-range ensemble simulations of mesoscale convective systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 20772107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tao, W.-K., and J. Simpson, 1993: Goddard Cumulus Ensemble Model. Part I: Model description. Terr. Atmos. Oceanic Sci., 4 (1), 3572.

  • Tao, W.-K., and Coauthors, 2003: Microphyics, radiation and surface processes in the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 82, 97137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tarantola, A., 2005: Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. SIAM, 352 pp.

  • Thompson, B., 1990: Multinor: A Fortran program that assists in evaluating multivariate normality. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 50, 845848.

  • van Leeuwen, P. J., 2010: Nonlinear data assimilation in geosciences: An extremely efficient particle filter. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136, 19911999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van Lier-Walqui, M., T. Vukicevic, and D. J. Posselt, 2012: Quantification of cloud microphysical parameterization uncertainty using radar reflectivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 34423466.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vukicevic, T., and D. Posselt, 2008: Analysis of the impact of model nonlinearities in inverse problem solving. J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 2803–2823.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vukicevic, T., O. Coddington, and P. Pilewskie, 2010: Characterizing the retrieval of cloud properties from optical remote sensing. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20211, doi:10.1029/2009JD012830.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 167 81 1
PDF Downloads 126 70 0