Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Annette Miltenberger x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Zachary J. Lebo, Ben J. Shipway, Jiwen Fan, Istvan Geresdi, Adrian Hill, Annette Miltenberger, Hugh Morrison, Phil Rosenberg, Adam Varble, and Lulin Xue
Full access
George C. Craig, Andreas H. Fink, Corinna Hoose, Tijana Janjić, Peter Knippertz, Audine Laurian, Sebastian Lerch, Bernhard Mayer, Annette Miltenberger, Robert Redl, Michael Riemer, Kirsten I. Tempest, and Volkmar Wirth


Prediction of weather is a main goal of atmospheric science. Its importance to society is growing continuously due to factors such as vulnerability to natural disasters, the move to renewable energy sources, and the risks of climate change. But prediction is also a major scientific challenge due to the inherently limited predictability of a chaotic atmosphere, and has led to a revolution in forecasting methods as we have moved to probabilistic prediction. These changes provide the motivation for Waves to Weather (W2W), a major national research program in Germany with three main university partners in Munich, Mainz, and Karlsruhe. We are currently in the second 4-yr phase of our planned duration of 12 years and employ 36 doctoral and postdoctoral scientists. In the context of this large program, we address what we have identified to be the most important and challenging scientific questions in predictability of weather, namely, upscale error growth, errors associated with cloud processes, and probabilistic prediction of high-impact weather. This paper presents some key results of the first phase of W2W and discusses how they have influenced our understanding of predictability. The key role of interdisciplinary research linking atmospheric scientists with experts in visualization, statistics, numerical analysis, and inverse methods will be highlighted. To ensure a lasting impact on research in our field in Germany and internationally, we have instituted innovative programs for training and support of early-career scientists, and to support education, equal opportunities, and outreach, which are also described here.

Open access
Peter J. Marinescu, Susan C. van den Heever, Max Heikenfeld, Andrew I. Barrett, Christian Barthlott, Corinna Hoose, Jiwen Fan, Ann M. Fridlind, Toshi Matsui, Annette K. Miltenberger, Philip Stier, Benoit Vie, Bethan A. White, and Yuwei Zhang


This study presents results from a model intercomparison project, focusing on the range of responses in deep convective cloud updrafts to varying cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations among seven state-of-the-art cloud-resolving models. Simulations of scattered convective clouds near Houston, Texas, are conducted, after being initialized with both relatively low and high CCN concentrations. Deep convective updrafts are identified, and trends in the updraft intensity and frequency are assessed. The factors contributing to the vertical velocity tendencies are examined to identify the physical processes associated with the CCN-induced updraft changes. The models show several consistent trends. In general, the changes between the High-CCN and Low-CCN simulations in updraft magnitudes throughout the depth of the troposphere are within 15% for all of the models. All models produce stronger (~+5%–15%) mean updrafts from ~4–7 km above ground level (AGL) in the High-CCN simulations, followed by a waning response up to ~8 km AGL in most of the models. Thermal buoyancy was more sensitive than condensate loading to varying CCN concentrations in most of the models and more impactful in the mean updraft responses. However, there are also differences between the models. The change in the amount of deep convective updrafts varies significantly. Furthermore, approximately half the models demonstrate neutral-to-weaker (~−5% to 0%) updrafts above ~8 km AGL, while the other models show stronger (~+10%) updrafts in the High-CCN simulations. The combination of the CCN-induced impacts on the buoyancy and vertical perturbation pressure gradient terms better explains these middle- and upper-tropospheric updraft trends than the buoyancy terms alone.

Open access