• Abraham, C., and A. H. Monahan, 2019: Climatological features of the weakly and very stably stratified nocturnal boundary layers. Part I: State variables containing information about regime occupation. J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 34553484, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0261.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arakawa, A., 1988: Finite-difference methods in climate modeling. Physically-Based Modelling and Simulation of Climate and Climatic Change, M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Springer, 79168, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3041-4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arakawa, A., 2004: The cumulus parameterization problem: Past, present and future. J. Climate, 17, 24932525, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2493:RATCPP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bechtold, P., E. Bazile, F. Guichard, P. Mascart, and E. Richard, 2001: A mass-flux convection scheme for regional and global models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 869886, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757309.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bélair, S., J. Mailhot, J. W. Strapp, and J. I. MacPherson, 1999: An examination of local versus non-local aspects of a TKE-based boundary layer scheme in clear convective conditions. J. Appl. Meteor., 38, 14991518, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1999)038<1499:AEOLVN>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bélair, S., L.-P. Crevier, J. Mailhot, B. Bilodeau, and Y. Delage, 2003: Operational implementation of the ISBA land surface scheme in the Canadian regional weather forecast model. Part I: Warm season results. J. Hydrometeor., 4, 352370, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)4<352:OIOTIL>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berner, J., S.-Y. Ha, J. P. Hacker, A. Fournier, and C. Snyder, 2011: Model uncertainty in a mesoscale ensemble prediction system: Stochastic versus multiphysics representations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 19721995, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3595.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berner, J., K. R. Fossell, S.-Y. Ha, J. P. Hacker, and C. Snyder, 2015: Increasing the skill of probabilistic forecasts: Understanding performance improvements from model-error representations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 12951320, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00091.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berner, J., and Coauthors, 2017: Stochastic parameterization: Towards a new view of weather and climate models. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 565588, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00268.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bessac, J., A. H. Monahan, H. M. Christensen, and N. Weitzel, 2019: Stochastic parameterization of subgrid-scale velocity enhancement of sea surface fluxes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 14471469, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blackadar, A. K., 1962: The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent exchange in a neutral atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 67, 30953102, https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ067i008p03095.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bougeault, P., and P. Lacarrère, 1989: Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta-scale model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 18721890, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1872:POOITI>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bowler, N. E., A. Arribas, K. R. Mylne, K. B. Robertson, and S. E. Beare, 2008: The MOGREPS short-range ensemble prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 703722, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.234.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bradshaw, P., 1974: Possible origin Prandtl’s mixing-length theory. Nature, 249, 135136, https://doi.org/10.1038/249135b0.

  • Buehner, M., and Coauthors, 2015: Implementation of deterministic weather forecast systems based on ensemble-variational data assimilation at Environment Canada. Part I: The global system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 25322559, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00354.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buizza, R., M. Miller, and T. N. Palmer, 1999: Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 28872908, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712556006.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Caron, L.-P., C. G. Jones, P. A. Vaillancourt, and K. Winger, 2012: On the relationship between cloud-radiation interaction, atmospheric stability and Atlantic tropical cyclones in a variable-resolution climate model. Climate Dyn., 40, 12571269, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1311-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Charron, M., E. Manzini, and C. D. Warner, 2002: Intercomparison of gravity wave parameterizations: Hines Dopper-spread and Warner and McIntyre ultra-simple schemes. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 80, 335345, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.80.335.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Charron, M., G. Pellerin, L. Spacek, P. L. Houtekamer, N. Gagnon, H. L. Mitchell, and L. Michelin, 2010: Towards random sampling of model error in the Canadian ensemble prediction system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 18771901, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR3187.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christensen, H. M., 2020: Constraining stochastic parameterization schemes using high-resolution simulations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 938962, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3717.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christensen, H. M., I. M. Moroz, and T. N. Palmer, 2015: Stochastic and perturbed parameter representations of model uncertainty in convection parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 25252544, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0250.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, P. A., C. E. Halliwell, and D. L. A. Flack, 2021: A physically based stochastic boundary layer perturbation scheme. Part I: Formulation and evaluation in a convection-permitting model. J. Atmos. Sci., 78, 727746, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0291.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Côté, J., S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 1998: The operational CMC-MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part I: Design considerations and formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 13731395, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<1373:TOCMGE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dee, D. P., and Coauthors, 2011: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Rooy, W. C., and Coauthors, 2013: Entrainment and detrainment in cumulus convection: An overview. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 119, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1959.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doyle, J. D., and M. A. Shapiro, 1999: Flow response to large-scale topography: The Greenland tip jet. Tellus, 51, 728748, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v51i5.14471.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferro, C. A. T., 2014: Fair scores for ensemble forecasts. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 19171923, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2270.

  • Ferro, C. A. T., D. S. Richardson, and A. P. Weigel, 2008: On the effect of ensemble size on the discrete and continuous ranked probability scores. Meteor. Appl., 15, 1924, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.45.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fletcher, J., S. Mason, and C. Jakob, 2016: The climatology, meteorology, and boundary layer structure of marine cold air outbreaks in both hemispheres. J. Climate, 29, 19992014, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0268.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fragkoulidis, G., and V. Wirth, 2020: Local Rossby wave packet amplitude, phase speed, and group velocity: Seasonal variability and their role in temperature extremes. J. Climate, 33, 87678787, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0377.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fricker, T. E., C. A. T. Ferro, and D. B. Stephenson, 2013: Three recommendations for evaluating climate predictions. Meteor. Appl., 20, 246255, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1409.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frogner, I., U. Andrae, P. Ollinaho, A. Hally, K. Hämäläinen, J. Kauhanen, K. Ivarsson, and D. Yazagi, 2022: Model uncertainty representation in a convection-permitting ensemble–SPP and SPPT in HarmonEPS. Mon. Wea. Rev., 150, 775795, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0099.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Geerts, B., and Coauthors, 2022: The COMBLE campaign: A study of marine boundary-layer clouds in Arctic cold air outbreaks. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103, E1371E1389, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0044.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Girard, C., and Coauthors, 2014: Staggered vertical discretization of the Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model using a coordinate of the log-hydrostatic-pressure type. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 11831196, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00255.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grabowski, W. W., 2014: Extracting microphysical impacts in large-eddy simulations of shallow convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 44934499, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0231.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gross, M., and Coauthors, 2018: Physics–dynamics coupling in weather, climate and Earth system models: Challenges and recent progress. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 35053544, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0345.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gurvan, M., and Coauthors, 2017: NEMO ocean engine. NEMO European Consortium, Zenodo, accessed 9 September 2021, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1472492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hagedorn, R., F. J. Doblas-Reyes, and T. N. Palmer, 2005: The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting—I. Basic concept. Tellus, 57A, 219233, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v57i3.14657.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., J. S. Whitaker, and X. Wei, 2004: Ensemble reforecasting: Improving medium-range forecast skill using retrospective forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 14341447, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1434:ERIMFS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hirt, M., S. Rasp, U. Blahak, and G. C. Craig, 2019: Stochastic parameterization of processes leading to convective initiation in kilometer-scale models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 39173934, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0060.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoskins, B., M. McIntyre, and A. Robertson, 1985: On the use and significance of isentropic potential vorticity maps. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 111, 877946, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49711147002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houtekamer, P. L., L. Lefaivre, J. Derome, H. Ritchie, and H. Mitchell, 1996: A system simulation approach to ensemble prediction. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 12251242, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1996)124<1225:ASSATE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houtekamer, P. L., H. L. Mitchell, and X. Deng, 2009: Model error representation in an operational ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 21262143, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2737.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houtekamer, P. L., X. Deng, H. Mitchell, S. Baek, and N. Gagnon, 2014: Higher resolution in an operational ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 11431162, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00138.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jankov, I., and Coauthors, 2017: A performance comparison between multiphysics and stochastic approaches within a North American RAP ensemble. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 11611179, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0160.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jankov, I., J. Beck, J. Wolff, M. Harrold, J. B. Olson, T. Smirnova, C. Alexander, and J. Berner, 2019: Stochastically perturbed parameterizations in an HRRR-based ensemble. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 153173, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0092.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Judt, F., 2020: Atmospheric predictability of the tropics, middle latitudes, and polar regions explored through global storm-resolving simulations. J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 257276, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0116.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kain, J. S., 2004: The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: An update. J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 170181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch, 1993: Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: The Kain–Fritsch scheme. The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical Models of the Atmosphere, Meteor. Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 165170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalina, E. A., I. Jankov, T. Alcott, J. Olson, J. Beck, J. Berner, D. Dowell, and C. Alexander, 2021: A progress report on the development of the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh Ensemble. Wea. Forecasting, 36, 791804, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-20-0098.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keane, R. J., G. C. Craig, C. Keil, and G. Zängl, 2014: The Plant–Craig stochastic convection scheme in ICON and its scale adaptivity. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 34043415, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0331.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krishnamurti, T. N., C. M. Kishtawal, Z. Zhang, T. LaRow, D. Bachiochi, E. Williford, S. Gadgil, and S. Surendan, 1999: Improving weather and seasonal climate forecasts from multimodel superensemble. Science, 285, 15481550, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5433.1548.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krishnamurti, T. N., V. Kumar, A. Simon, A. Bhardwaj, T. Ghosh, and R. Ross, 2016: A review of multimodel superensemble forecasting for weather, seasonal climate, and hurricanes. Rev. Geophys., 54, 336377, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000513.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lang, S. T. K., S.-J. Lock, M. Leutbecher, P. Bechtold, and R. M. Forbes, 2021: Revision of the stochastically perturbed parameterizations model uncertainty scheme in the Integrated Forecasting System. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 147, 13641381, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3978.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leutbecher, M., 2019: Ensemble size: How suboptimal is less than infinity? Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 145 (Suppl. 1), 107128, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3387.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leutbecher, M., and T. N. Palmer, 2007: Ensemble forecasting. J. Comput. Phys., 227, 35153539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.014.

  • Leutbecher, M., R. Buizza, and L. Isaksen, 2007: Ensemble forecasting and flow-dependent estimates of initial uncertainty. ECMWF Workshop on Flow-Dependent Aspects of Data Assimilation, Shinfield Park, Reading, ECMWF, 17 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leutbecher, M., and Coauthors, 2017: Stochastic representations of model uncertainties at ECMWF: State of the art and future vision. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 23152339, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3094.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, J., and H. W. Barker, 2005: A radiation algorithm with correlated-k distribution. Part I: local thermal equilibrium. J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 286309, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-3396.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, X., M. Charron, L. Spacek, and G. Candille, 2008: A regional ensemble prediction system based on moist targeted singular vectors and stochastic parameter perturbations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 443462, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2109.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lillo, S. P., and D. B. Parsons, 2017: Investigating the dynamics of error growth in ECMWF medium-range forecast busts. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 12111226, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2938.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lin, J. W.-B., and D. J. Neelin, 2000: Influence of a stochastic moist convective parameterization on tropical climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 36913694, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL011964.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lorenz, E. N., 1969: The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion. Tellus, 21, 289307, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v21i3.10086.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lott, F., and M. J. Miller, 1997: A new subgrid-scale orographic drag parameterization: Its formulation and testing. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 123, 101127, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712353704.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luo, X., and Y. Zhang, 2015: The linkage between upper-level jet streams over East Asia and the East Asian winter monsoon variability. J. Climate, 28, 90139028, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0160.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mapes, B. E., 2000: Convective inhibition, subgrid-scale triggering energy, and stratiform instability in a toy tropical wave model. J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 15151535, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<1515:CISSTE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McFarquhar, G. M., and A. J. Heymsfield, 1998: The definition and significance of an effective radius for ice clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 20392052, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055<2039:TDASOA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McTaggart-Cowan, R., and A. Zadra, 2015: Representing Richardson number hysteresis in the NWP boundary layer. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 12321258, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00179.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McTaggart-Cowan, R., P. A. Vaillancourt, A. Zadra, L. Separovic, S. Covec, and D. Kirshbaum, 2019a: A Lagrangian perspective on parameterizing deep convection. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 41274149, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0164.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McTaggart-Cowan, R., and Coauthors, 2019b: Modernization of atmospheric physics parameterization in Canadian NWP. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 35933635, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001781.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McTaggart-Cowan, R., P. Vaillancourt, L. Separovic, S. Corvec, and A. Zadra, 2020: A convection parameterization for low-CAPE environments. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 49174941, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0020.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McTaggart-Cowan, R., L. Separovic, M. Charron, X. Deng, N. Gagnon, P. L. Houtekamer, and A. Patoine, 2022: Using stochastically perturbed parameterizations to represent model uncertainty. Part II: Comparison with existing techniques in an operational ensemble. Mon. Wea. Rev., 150, 28592882, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0316.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Molinari, J., and M. Dudek, 1992: Parameterization of convective precipitation in mesoscale numerical models: A critical review. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 326344, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120<0326:POCPIM>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Munk, W. H., 1950: On the wind-driven ocean circulation. J. Meteor., 7, 8093, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1950)007<0080:OTWDOC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noilhan, J., and S. Planton, 1989: A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 536549, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<0536:ASPOLS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ollinaho, P., and Coauthors, 2017: Towards process-level representation of model uncertainties: Stochastically perturbed parameterizations in the ECMWF ensemble. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 408422, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2931.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oreopoulos, L., and H. W. Barker, 1999: Accounting for subgrid-scale cloud variability in a multi-layer 1D solar radiative transfer algorithm. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 301330, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Palmer, T. N., R. Buizza, F. Doblas-Reyes, T. Jung, M. Leutbecher, G. J. Shutts, M. Steinheimer, and A. Weisheimer, 2009: Stochastic parameterization and model uncertainty. ECMWF Tech. Memo. 598, 44 pp., http://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2009/11577-stochastic-parametrization-and-model-uncertainty.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Papritz, L., and T. Spengler, 2017: A Lagrangian climatology of wintertime cold air outbreaks in the Imerger and Nordic Seas and their role in shaping air–sea heat fluxes. J. Climate, 30, 27172737, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0605.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Persson, A., 2017: The story of the Hovmöller diagram: An (almost) eyewitness account. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 949957, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00234.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Plant, R. S., and G. C. Craig, 2008: A stochastic parameterization for deep convection based on equilibrium statistics. J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 87105, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2263.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Plant, R. S., R. J. Keane, J. Tennant, and M. A. W. Whitall, 2011: Stochastic parameterization: Uncertainties for convection. Proc. ECMWF Workshop on Model Uncertainty, Shinfield Park, Reading, ECMWF, 233242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posselt, D., and T. Vukicevic, 2010: Robust characterization of model physics uncertainty for simulations of deep moist convection. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 15131535, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR3094.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Qaddouri, A., and V. Lee, 2011: The Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale model on the yin–yang grid system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 19131926, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.873.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rasp, S., T. Selz, and G. C. Craig, 2018: Variability and clustering of midlatitude summertime convection: Testing the Craig and Cohen theory in a convection-permitting ensemble with stochastic boundary layer perturbations. J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 691706, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0258.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reynolds, C. A., J. A. Ridout, and J. G. McLay, 2011: Estimation of parameter variations in the U. S. Navy global ensemble. Tellus, 63, 841857, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2011.00532.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rodwell, M. J., and Coauthors, 2013: Characteristics of occasionally poor medium-range weather forecasts for Europe. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 13931405, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00099.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Röthlisberger, M., O. Martius, and H. Wernli, 2018: Northern Hemisphere Rossby wave initiation events on the extratropical jet—A climatological analysis. J. Climate, 31, 743760, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0346.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sakradzija, M., A. Seifert, and T. Heus, 2015: Fluctuations in a quasi-stationary shallow cumulus cloud ensemble. Nonlinear Processes Geophys., 22, 6585, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-65-2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sakradzija, M., F. Senf, L. Scheck, M. Ahlgrimm, and D. Kloke, 2020: Local impact of stochastic shallow convection on clouds and precipitation in the tropical Atlantic. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 50415062, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0107.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sanchez, C., K. Williams, and M. Collins, 2016: Improved stochastic physics schemes for global weather and climate models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 147159, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2640.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shutts, G. J., 2005: A kinetic energy backscatter algorithm for use in ensemble prediction systems. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 30793102, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.106.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, E. T., and S. C. Sheridan, 2020: Where do cold air outbreaks occur, and how have they changed over time? Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL086983,https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL086983.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, G. C., and Coauthors, 2018: Impact of coupling with an ice–ocean model on global medium-range NWP forecast skill. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 11571180, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0157.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stan, C., D. M. Straus, J. S. Frederiksen, H. Lin, E. D. Malone, and C. Schumacher, 2017: Review of tropical-extratropical teleconnections on intraseasonal time scales. Rev. Geophys., 55, 902937, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000538.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stensrud, D. J., J. 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, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<2077:UICAMP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Subramanian, A., S. Juricke, P. Dueben, and T. Palmer, 2019: A stochastic representation of subgrid uncertainty for dynamical core development. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100, 10911101, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0040.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suhas, E., and G. J. Zhang, 2014: Evaluation of trigger functions for convective parameterization schemes using observations. J. Climate, 27, 76477666, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00718.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sundqvist, H., E. Berge, and J. E. Kristjánsson, 1989: Condensation and cloud parameterization studies with a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 16411657, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1641:CACPSW>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Teixeira, J., and C. A. Reynolds, 2008: Stochastic nature of physical parameterization in ensemble prediction: A stochastic convection approach. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 483496, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR1870.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tilinina, N., A. Gavrikov, and S. K. Gulev, 2018: Association of North Atlantic surface turbulent heat fluxes with midlatitude cyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 36913715, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0291.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, Y., G. J. Zhang, S. Xie, W. Lin, G. C. Craig, Q. Tang, and H.-Y. Ma, 2021: Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMV1.0 atmosphere model. Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 15751593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, D. S., 2016: “The stippling shows statistically significant grid points”: How research results are routinely overstated and overinterpreted, and what to do about it. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, 22632273, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wirth, V., M. Riemer, E. K. Chang, and O. Martius, 2018: Rossby wave packets on the midlatitude waveguide—A review. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 19652001, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0483.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yang, S., K.-M. Lau, and K.-M. Kim, 2002: Variations in the East Asian jet stream and Asian–Pacific–American winter climate anomalies. J. Climate, 15, 306325, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0306:VOTEAJ>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yeh, K.-S., J. Côté, S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 2002: The CMC-MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part III: Nonhydrostatic formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 339356, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<0339:TCMGEM>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Žagar, N., 2017: A global perspective of the limits of prediction skill of NWP models. Tellus, 69, 1317573, https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2017.1317573.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • View in gallery
    Fig. 1.

    (a) Sample spatial pattern of F(Λ, ϕ, t), for the perturbation range [−2.5, 2.5] as used by the continuous ml_emod SPP element (Table 3). (b) An example of the discrete perturbation pattern for the deeptrig SPP element is shown. Field values are color filled following the color bars below each panel.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 2.

    Evolution of global spread and error of (a),(d) 250-hPa zonal wind; (b),(e) 500-hPa geopotential height; and (c),(f) 850-hPa temperature in control and SPP-based ensembles, showing (left) the spread (dashed lines) and RMSEu [solid lines; Eq. (5)] for the control (black) and SPP-based (red) integrations and (right) the fractional contribution of the SPP scheme to ensemble spread computed using Eq. (2), expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf). Also shown in (d)–(f) are color-shaded backgrounds for the forecast pentads.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 3.

    Summary of fractional contributions of the full SPP scheme (left) to ensemble standard deviation and (right) to fCRPS in the (a),(d) northern midlatitudes (25°–70°N); (b),(e) tropics (25°N–25°S); and (c)–(f) southern midlatitudes (25°–70°S). Each panel shows contributions, expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf), to the 250-hPa zonal wind (U250; first panel row), 500-hPa geopotential height (Z500; second panel row), 850-hPa temperature (T850; third panel row), 850-hPa specific humidity (Q850; fourth panel row), screen-level temperature (T2m; fifth panel row), and sea level pressure (SLP; sixth panel row). Contributions are averaged over pentads as indicated on the abscissa, with color filling following the color bar. The values of contributions that exceed 0.1% and are assessed to be significant at the 99% level using a 1000-member bootstrap test (increased from the 95% used elsewhere in this study to reduce the prevalence of type-I errors associated with multiple comparisons) are shown explicitly on the plot.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 4.

    Spread-reliability diagrams (Leutbecher et al. 2007) for 72-h forecasts of (left) 850-hPa temperature and (right)250-hPa zonal winds in the control (black) and SPP-based (red) ensembles in (a),(d) the northern midlatitudes; (b),(e) the tropics; and (c),(f) the southern midlatitudes. Filled circles indicate means for 5-percentile bins, and filled squares indicate the overall means for the ensembles. The ideal 1:1 reference is shown with a dashed gray line. Note that the ranges of the tropical [in (b)] and midlatitude [in (a) and (c)] diagrams differ to reflect regional differences in spread and error. Both spread and error are normalized by the climatological standard deviation, computed using the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Dee et al. 2011) for the period 1989–2016.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 5.

    Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to turbulent transport in the surface and boundary layer. Fractional contributions to (a)–(c) ensemble spread and (d)–(f) fCRPS are plotted as in Fig. 3, except that the temporal abscissa is replaced by individual SPP elements (Table 3) such that each column in the panels represents pentad-1 sensitivity diagnosed from an independent test. The names of elements that are included in the full SPP configuration (section 4a) are shown in black, and those that were rejected are shown in gray. The range of the color bars has been reduced from the values used in Fig. 3 because of the limited amplitude of individual SPP element contributions.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 6.

    Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to moist convection, plotted as in Fig. 5.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 7.

    Ensemble mean pentad-1 profiles of (a) temperature and (b) geopotential height biases over the tropical oceans (25°S–25°N) in the control (black) and bkf_evaps (red) ensembles. Differences between the ensembles that are determined to be significant at the 95% level based on a 1000-member bootstrap are identified with solid circles on the profile with the smallest absolute bias value.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 8.

    Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to gridscale clouds, cloud–radiation interactions, and radiative transfer, plotted as in Fig. 5.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 9.

    Sensitivity of (a) the visible (solar) albedo at the top of the atmosphere and (b) incoming visible radiation at the surface to the rei_mult SPP element for grid cells with overcast high cloud (7–8 octas) between 70°S and 70°N over the first 24 h of integration. Pairwise differences are computed at 6-h intervals between rei_mult and the control ensemble members using a 25-gridpoint subsampling to promote independence. The percentage change in (b) is computed by dividing such a difference by the value in the control ensemble. A kernel density estimate of the scatterplot is shown in solid black lines for reference. The best-fit linear model is shown with the dashed red line, with R2 values annotated on the panels. The perturbation origin (F = 1 and zero response) is indicated with dashed gray lines.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 10.

    Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to momentum transport and dry dynamics, plotted as in Fig. 5.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 11.

    Contribution by the phycpl SPP element to (a) the mean global kinetic energy spectrum for 250-hPa zonal wind and (b) the mean global 850-hPa temperature variance spectrum after 120 h of integration. This contribution is computed using Eq. (2) and is expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf) such that negative values are associated with a decrease in spectral variance. The 95% confidence interval for the sensitivity is shown in light gray shading, with intervals that do not reach 0 (horizontal gray dashed line) indicative of significant departures based on a 1000-member bootstrap.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 12.

    Sensitivity of (a) screen-level temperature spread (°C) and (b) fCRPS (°C) to the fh_mult SPP element, computed as differences with respect to the control ensemble averaged over pentad 1. Differences that are determined to be statistically significant for a false discovery rate (Wilks 2016) of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap are dark-shaded following the bottom color bar on each panel, and those that fail to meet this level of significance are light-shaded following the top color bar.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 13.

    (a) Ensemble mean screen-level temperature (T2m; °C) and (c) surface turbulent sensible heat flux (SHF; W m−2) averaged over pentad 1 in the control. (b),(d) The difference of means computed as fh_mult minus control are shown using the same units. Differences that are found to be significant for a false discovery rate of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap are dark-shaded following the lower color bar, and those that fail to reach this level of significance are light-shaded following the upper color bar of each panel. The North Atlantic region used for further investigation of perturbation-induced changes is outlined in black in (b) and (d).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 14.

    Oceanic (a) screen-level temperature and (b) sensible heat flux responses to exchange coefficient perturbations in the fh_mult ensemble averaged over the North Atlantic region (Figs. 13b,d). Pairwise differences are computed at 6-h intervals between the fh_mult and control ensemble members and plotted using dots that are color coded with the value of the quantity in the fh_mult ensemble as shown on the color bars. The sensible heat flux shown in (b) is computed from Eq. (7) before perturbations are applied. A kernel density estimate of the scatterplot is shown in solid black lines for reference. The best-fit linear model for perturbations over the range [0.8–1.2] (bounds highlighted with vertical green dashed lines) is shown with the dashed red line, and the average temperature departure for 10 perturbation percentile bins is shown with the blue line and blue points at the bin centroids. The perturbation origin (F = 1 and zero response) is indicated with dashed gray lines. The response time of these surface layer properties (min) is short relative to the perturbation time scale (τ = 36 h). As a result, these relationships are robust throughout the 5-day integration, with the perturbation-induced divergence of solutions leading only to increased dispersion of the points (not shown).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 15.

    Sensitivity of (a),(c) 850-hPa temperature spread (°C) and (b),(d) fCRPS (°C) for the (left) longmel and (right) ml_emod ensembles. Plotting follows the conventions employed in Fig. 12, except that regions in which surface pressure is less than 850 hPa are masked with light-green shading.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 16.

    Mixing-length properties (m) at model hybrid level ∼0.92 (∼500 m above the surface) averaged over pentad 1. Shown are (a) the mean mixing length in the control ensemble, (b) the mean difference between the ml_emod and control ensemble (computed as ml_emod minus control), and (c) the difference in ensemble standard deviation [computed as for (b)]. Values are color coded according to the color bars at the bottom of each panel, with dark shading in (b) and (c) indicative of difference that are statistically significant for a false discovery rate of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap. The North Pacific domain used in Fig. 17 is outlined in black in (b) and (c).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 17.

    Properties of mixing-length estimates at hybrid level ∼0.92 (∼500 m above the surface) over the North Pacific basin (outlined in black in Figs. 16b,c) for a control simulation initialized at 0000 UTC 19 Jan 2020 with perturbed mixing-length diagnostics obtained by piggyback calculations (Grabowski 2014): (a) the cumulative frequency distributions of the Blackadar (1962) (black), Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989) (blue), and perturbed (red) mixing lengths, with the unphysical region λ < 0 gray shaded, and (b) the relationship between the two estimates, with green dots for individual points and a kernel density estimate in solid black lines (powers of 2 used for contour intervals; “e−0X” indicates multiplication by 10 raised to the −X power). The 1:1 line appears in gray dashes for reference. The regions in which large absolute values of F could lead to a negative perturbed mixing length for the [−2.5, 2.5] range used in the ml_emod ensemble are computed via Eq. (4) and are shown with gray shading, and the equivalent for [−0.5, 0.5] is shown with a thin red dashed line. These plots are computed from data at 6-hourly intervals that are spatially subsampled at 10-gridpoint intervals to limit data volume and promote independence.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 18.

    Schematic description of upstream-point interpolation in a 1D semi-Lagrangian advection scheme for fields with (a) large and (b) small local curvature. The advecting wind is blowing in the negative x direction at a speed sufficient to transport parcels 0.4 grid lengths in a time step (Courant number of 0.4) as shown with a black arrow between the gray dashed vertical lines that represent the trajectory bounds. The abscissa depicts grid points relative to the destination (0), and the ordinate displays values of the advected variable. Gridpoint values of the advected variable are shown with green dots. The cubic interpolating polynomial is shown in black, and the linear interpolating polynomial is shown in blue. At the upstream location, the advected-field value is shown with a red square for cubic interpolation and a red triangle for linear interpolation. Red dashed lines connect the interpolation positions to field values on the ordinate.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 19.

    Sensitivity of (a),(c) 500-hPa height spread (m) and (b),(d) fCRPS (m) for the (left) adv_rhsint and (right) uniform ensembles. The latter configuration does not use the modulation defined in Eq. (11). Plotting follows the conventions employed in Fig. 12. The climatological position of the East Asian subtropical jet (Luo and Zhang 2015) is identified with an arrow on each panel for reference in Fig. 20 below and is labeled as EASJ in (a).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 20.

    Hovmöller diagrams (Persson 2017) of the fractional contribution [Eq. (2), in percentage as 100 × Cf] of the adv_rhsint SPP element to (a),(c) 500-hPa height ensemble spread and (b),(d) fCRPS for (left) standard latitude modulation [Eq. (11)] with ϕo = 45° and (right) an ensemble with ϕo = 30°. Dashed black lines indicate the phase speed (cp ≈ 10 m s−1) and group velocity (cg ≈ 20 m s−1) for Rossby waves initiated at the western and eastern ends of the east Asian subtropical jet, respectively [the climatological jet position is indicated with a heavy green line at the top of each panel (Luo and Zhang 2015), consistent with Fig. 19].

  • View in gallery
    Fig. A1.

    Distributions from which F°(Λ, ϕ, t) is sampled [Eq. (A7)] for Fmin = −0.5 and Fmax = 0.5 (“value” on the abscissa), and shape parameter γ = 1 (solid), γ = 1.1 (dashed), and γ = 2 (dotted). These probability density estimates are obtained empirically using 108 draws from the underlying function.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. A2.

    Variance spectra of F for 16 × 8 (red), 64 × 32 (blue), and 384 × 192 (black) intermediate global grids. Spectra are computed after cubic interpolation of the native yin–yang outputs to an 800 × 600 Gaussian grid for the same eight independent SPP elements used for the variance calculations shown in Table A1. To increase the robustness of the spectral analysis, spectra are computed and averaged from the 6-, 60-, and 120-h lead times from the 0000 UTC 1 Jan 2020 initialization of the M = 10 ensemble, such that a total of 240 individual spectra contribute to each of the results shown here. The shaded area around each line represents the width of the 95% confidence interval for the mean.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. A3.

    Representative stochastic fields F generated using (a) 16 × 8 and (b) 384 × 192 intermediate grids, plotted as in Fig. 1a but for the range [0.5, 1.5] consistent with the SPP elements used in this analysis.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. A4.

    Sampling distributions of F on the yin–yang model grid following interpolation (L) from the 16 × 8 (red), 64 × 32 (blue), and 384 × 192 (black) intermediate grids [Eq. (A8)]. The data used to compute these distributions are those employed for the spectral analyses shown in Fig. A2. Also plotted is the distribution obtained from Eq. (A7) for γ = 1.45 (gray) for reference.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 34 34 0
Full Text Views 627 627 46
PDF Downloads 555 555 53

Using Stochastically Perturbed Parameterizations to Represent Model Uncertainty. Part I: Implementation and Parameter Sensitivity

Ron McTaggart-CowanaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Ron McTaggart-Cowan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3092-4365
,
Leo SeparovicaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Leo Separovic in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Rabah AideraAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Rabah Aider in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Martin CharronaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Martin Charron in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Michel DesgagnéaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Michel Desgagné in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Pieter L. HoutekamerbData Assimilation Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Pieter L. Houtekamer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Danahé Paquin-RicardaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Danahé Paquin-Ricard in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Paul A. VaillancourtaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Paul A. Vaillancourt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Ayrton ZadraaAtmospheric Numerical Weather Prediction Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Ayrton Zadra in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

Accurately representing model-based sources of uncertainty is essential for the development of reliable ensemble prediction systems for NWP applications. Uncertainties in discretizations, algorithmic approximations, and diabatic and unresolved processes combine to influence forecast skill in a flow-dependent way. An emerging approach designed to provide a process-level representation of these potential error sources, stochastically perturbed parameterizations (SPP), is introduced into the Canadian operational Global Ensemble Prediction System. This implementation extends the SPP technique beyond its typical application to free parameters in the physics suite by sampling uncertainty both within the dynamical core and at the formulation level using “error models” when multiple physical closures are available. Because SPP perturbs components within the model, internal consistency is ensured and conservation properties are not affected. The full SPP scheme is shown to increase ensemble spread to keep pace with error growth on a global scale. The sensitivity of the ensemble to each independently perturbed “element” is then assessed, with those responsible for the bulk of the response analyzed in more detail. Perturbations to surface exchange coefficients and the turbulent mixing length have a leading impact on near-surface statistics. Aloft, a tropically focused error model representing uncertainty in the advection scheme is found to initiate growing perturbations on the subtropical jet that lead to forecast improvements at higher latitudes. The results of Part I suggest that SPP has the potential to serve as a reliable representation of model uncertainty for ensemble NWP applications.

Significance Statement

Ensemble systems account for the negative impact that uncertainties in prediction models have on forecasts. Here, uncertain model parameters and algorithms are subjected to perturbations representing impact on forecast errors. By initiating error growth within the model calculations, the equally skillful members of the ensemble remain physically realistic and self-consistent, which is not guaranteed by other depictions of model error. This “stochastically perturbed parameterization” technique (SPP) comprises many small error sources, each analyzed in isolation. Each source is related to a limited set of processes, making it possible to determine how the individual perturbations affect the forecast. We conclude that SPP in the Canadian Global Ensemble Forecasting System produces realistic estimates of the impact of model uncertainties on forecast skill.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Ron McTaggart-Cowan, ron.mctaggart-cowan@ec.gc.ca

Abstract

Accurately representing model-based sources of uncertainty is essential for the development of reliable ensemble prediction systems for NWP applications. Uncertainties in discretizations, algorithmic approximations, and diabatic and unresolved processes combine to influence forecast skill in a flow-dependent way. An emerging approach designed to provide a process-level representation of these potential error sources, stochastically perturbed parameterizations (SPP), is introduced into the Canadian operational Global Ensemble Prediction System. This implementation extends the SPP technique beyond its typical application to free parameters in the physics suite by sampling uncertainty both within the dynamical core and at the formulation level using “error models” when multiple physical closures are available. Because SPP perturbs components within the model, internal consistency is ensured and conservation properties are not affected. The full SPP scheme is shown to increase ensemble spread to keep pace with error growth on a global scale. The sensitivity of the ensemble to each independently perturbed “element” is then assessed, with those responsible for the bulk of the response analyzed in more detail. Perturbations to surface exchange coefficients and the turbulent mixing length have a leading impact on near-surface statistics. Aloft, a tropically focused error model representing uncertainty in the advection scheme is found to initiate growing perturbations on the subtropical jet that lead to forecast improvements at higher latitudes. The results of Part I suggest that SPP has the potential to serve as a reliable representation of model uncertainty for ensemble NWP applications.

Significance Statement

Ensemble systems account for the negative impact that uncertainties in prediction models have on forecasts. Here, uncertain model parameters and algorithms are subjected to perturbations representing impact on forecast errors. By initiating error growth within the model calculations, the equally skillful members of the ensemble remain physically realistic and self-consistent, which is not guaranteed by other depictions of model error. This “stochastically perturbed parameterization” technique (SPP) comprises many small error sources, each analyzed in isolation. Each source is related to a limited set of processes, making it possible to determine how the individual perturbations affect the forecast. We conclude that SPP in the Canadian Global Ensemble Forecasting System produces realistic estimates of the impact of model uncertainties on forecast skill.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Ron McTaggart-Cowan, ron.mctaggart-cowan@ec.gc.ca

1. Introduction

One of the primary goals of ensemble NWP systems is to provide information about the evolution of possible errors over the forecast period. The sources of these errors are the uncertainties inherent in the system, whose origins include incomplete observations, assimilation hypotheses, discretization approximations and deficiencies in the forecast model. Accurately representing these uncertainties is essential for generating a reliable depiction of guidance quality. Sources of uncertainty within the forecast model are the focus of this two-part study, which investigates the utility of a recently proposed form of stochastic model error representation in the context of an operational global ensemble prediction system.

Two broad classes of strategies to represent model uncertainties have been adopted in operational ensembles: multiformulation and stochastic (Berner et al. 2017). Multiformulation approaches employ different algorithms for different ensemble members to generate a diversity of possible solutions, and include multimodel ensembles (Krishnamurti et al. 1999, 2016; Hagedorn et al. 2005) and multiphysics ensembles (Houtekamer et al. 1996; Stensrud et al. 2000; Berner et al. 2011, 2015). Stochastic strategies depend on distinct perturbations to individual members that promote the divergence of the ensemble in sensitive regions. Stochastically perturbed parameterization tendencies (Buizza et al. 1999; Palmer et al. 2009; Christensen et al. 2015) are an example of such a strategy that has been widely adopted in operational systems around the world (Palmer et al. 2009; Charron et al. 2010; Sanchez et al. 2016; Leutbecher et al. 2017). Stochastic uncertainty representation can also be implemented at the level of individual physical processes including deep convection (Lin and Neelin 2000; Teixeira and Reynolds 2008; Plant and Craig 2008), shallow convection (Sakradzija et al. 2015) and boundary layer turbulence (Rasp et al. 2018; Hirt et al. 2019; Clark et al. 2021). Such schemes depict only the sampling component of uncertainty (Plant et al. 2011); however, they benefit from the conceptual advantage of seeding ensemble diversity in close proximity to potential error sources and can improve ensemble predictions (Keane et al. 2014; Sakradzija et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021).

This study focuses on a form of model uncertainty representation that has received increased recent attention: stochastically perturbed parameterizations (SPP). The distinguishing feature of this approach is that perturbations are made to uncertain internal model parameters rather than being applied in a post hoc manner to computed physics tendencies (Leutbecher et al. 2017). This incremental step toward process-level stochasticity allows the SPP scheme to depict uncertainty sources in a comprehensive way that ensures internal consistency and conservation (Lang et al. 2021). Unlike multiformulation approaches, the SPP technique also preserves the exchangeability of members, an attribute that promotes Gaussianity and is a prerequisite for fair evaluation techniques (Ferro 2014). Building on the work of Li et al. (2008) and Bowler et al. (2008), Ollinaho et al. (2017) describe the development of an SPP scheme in an experimental version of the ECMWF global ensemble. They conclude that despite improvements in short-range and precipitation predictions, the SPP scheme is unable to produce forecasts that are as skillful as those of the operational ensemble. Jankov et al. (2017) suggest that the SPP scheme is unable to generate sufficient ensemble spread because its sampling of potential error sources is incomplete, a finding that is consistent with the demonstration by Jankov et al. (2019) that combining SPP with other stochastic methods currently yields optimal ensemble performance. However, Lang et al. (2021) note that care must be taken in selecting these techniques to retain the conceptual benefits that the SPP scheme affords.

Spurred by the roadmap for stochastic algorithm development proposed by Leutbecher et al. (2017), refinement of the SPP scheme in the ECMWF ensemble has resulted in a configuration that yields medium-range forecasts that are generally as skillful as those generated by the operational system (Lang et al. 2021). Despite this rapid progress, important questions remain about the effects of model resolution and cycling within the ensemble data assimilation system. Similarly, Kalina et al. (2021) show that the SPP technique yields physically realistic solutions that improve the reliability of a convection-permitting ensemble; however, the perturbations worsen a dry bias in the system so that the resulting forecasts lack the sharpness required for severe-weather forecasting. These results suggest that continued development of the SPP approach has the potential to lead to a scheme that is capable of serving as the primary representation of model uncertainty in an operational context.

This study documents the development of an extended SPP scheme in the Global Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS; Houtekamer et al. 2014). In addition to free-parameter perturbations (Ollinaho et al. 2017), uncertainties in the model’s dynamical core and in the formulation of physical closures are sampled in this implementation. The resulting scheme attempts to represent a broader range of potential error sources than did its predecessors; however, there is a commensurate increase in the computational cost and the complexity of the system. As a result, careful examination of the impact of each individual perturbation (referred to as SPP “elements” hereinafter) is required to ensure an optimal balance between these competing imperatives. This element-level investigation builds on the findings of studies such as Reynolds et al. (2011) and Frogner et al. (2022) to provide insight into the physics and dynamics of model error growth that affects guidance quality. At the same time, it expands the catalog of well-documented sensitivities that will inform the development of future model uncertainty schemes.

The GEPS is introduced in section 2, with the implementation of the SPP scheme described in section 3. Section 4 contains a summary of results from both the full SPP scheme and a series of sensitivity tests in which individual elements are activated. For some of the leading elements, further investigations of processes underlying the observed sensitivities are presented in section 5. The first part of the study concludes with a discussion in section 6, which sets the stage for comparison between results from the SPP scheme and those obtained with the existing operational model uncertainty representations in McTaggart-Cowan et al. [2022, hereinafter Part II (of this investigation)].

2. Data and methods

The Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model is employed for all simulations discussed in this study. Its dynamical core uses implicit two-time-level temporal discretization and semi-Lagrangian advection to solve the Euler equations (Côté et al. 1998; Yeh et al. 2002; Girard et al. 2014). The global domain is represented using a pair of overlapping limited-area Arakawa C grids (Arakawa 1988) in a so-called yin–yang configuration (Qaddouri and Lee 2011) with 0.35° grid spacing. The model employs 84 terrain-following log-hydrostatic-pressure-based vertical levels (Girard et al. 2014) with a top at 0.1 hPa.

Diabatic and unresolved processes are represented using a physical parameterization suite that recently underwent a major update (McTaggart-Cowan et al. 2019b). The SPP-based GEPS ensemble employs a single physics configuration that is summarized in Table 1. Although operational GEPS forecasts include coupling to the NEMO ocean model (Gurvan et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2018), the simulations here are atmosphere only, with sea surface temperatures fixed to their analyzed values as in the GEPS data assimilation cycle (Houtekamer et al. 2014).

Table 1

Configuration of the GEM physical parameterization suite used in all GEPS experiments.

Table 1

The ensemble system employed in this study is a simplified form of the forecast component of the GEPS. It is initialized by subsampling analyses from the 256-member data assimilation ensemble over a 2-month boreal winter period (January–February 2020) using two different strategies. The system’s response to the full set of SPP elements is assessed in section 4 using a 20-member ensemble initialized at 36-h intervals. Forecasts for the 40 dates extend to 360-h lead times to duplicate the behavior of the operational system. To assess the isolated impacts of the individual SPP ingredients at a reasonable computational cost, a minimized system is employed in sections 4b and 5. Ensembles consisting of 10 perturbed members are initiated every 108 h (4.5 days) to promote independence (Hamill et al. 2004). This yields 15 initializations for each sensitivity test, with each forecast extending to only 120 h given the limited sample size (150 individual integrations). The leading-order signals obtained from the two ensemble configurations are qualitatively similar (section 4b), confirmation that the minimized system is sufficiently robust for SPP sensitivity analysis.

The control integrations that serve as the basis for evaluation of SPP impacts are instances of the configurations described above, run without the SPP active. Member solutions (forecast metric J) in these control forecasts diverge because of differing initial conditions xi and the influence of a stochastic kinetic energy backscatter scheme (Shutts 2005; Charron et al. 2010). These sources of diversity are the same in all configurations and provide a background of realistic ensemble statistics for SPP sensitivity analyses. The latter are based on changes in conditional sensitivity S:
ΔS=Jxi|SPPJxi|control,
which reduces to ΔSJSPPJcontrol because of identical xi. This marginal sensitivity is used to describe the impact of changes on individual fields. Normalizing by the control ensemble yields the fractional contribution Cf of SPP to J:
Cf(J)=JSPPJcontrolJcontrol,
a dimensionless quantity that facilitates comparison of the SPP scheme’s impact across forecast metrics and lead times (Reynolds et al. 2011).

Guidance quality is assessed through comparisons with analyses produced by the Canadian Global Deterministic Prediction System (Buehner et al. 2015), interpolated onto a common 0.35° latitude–longitude grid. To minimize the volume of presented data and to improve the stability of the evaluation statistics, diagnostic results are pentad averaged for most assessments: pentad 1 (24–120-h forecasts), pentad 2 (144–240-h forecasts), and pentad 3 (264–360-h forecasts).

3. Stochastically perturbed parameterizations

The sources of error within numerical models are widespread, including problems with truncation, convergence, free parameter estimates, closures, and the depiction of physical processes. The SPP technique injects perturbations in close proximity to these underlying error sources, thereby representing the resulting uncertainty in a natural way. The conceptual framework for SPP is described by Ollinaho et al. (2017); however, each SPP implementation is unique because of the highly model-specific nature of the perturbed elements. This section begins with an introduction of the stochastic field generator used to create pseudorandom perturbation patterns (section 3a), followed by a description of the SPP scheme’s implementation in the GEPS (section 3b).

a. The stochastic field generator

An important ingredient in stochastic representations of model error is the structure of the perturbations. Although white noise (without temporal or spatial correlations) could be considered as a possible method for representing the seeds of uncertainty in a chaotic system (Lorenz 1969), Žagar (2017) and Christensen (2020) document the prevalence of large-scale errors in NWP forecasts. As a result, temporally and spatially correlated perturbations are needed to inject variability on scales that accurately reflect the uncertainties in the system.

The GEM model supports the representation of stochastic processes by creating a set of independent pseudorandom patterns using first-order autoregressive [AR(1)] processes. These fields [F(Λ, ϕ, t), where Λ, ϕ, and t represent longitude, latitude, and time, respectively] can be used to seed the perturbations that represent uncertainty in any component of the model.

The construction of F is described in detail in the appendix and differs from the ECMWF implementation (Ollinaho et al. 2017) in both formulation and configuration (the primary parameters for the stochastic field generator are identified in Table 2 for reference). An example of F produced by the stochastic field generator for the global wavenumber range 1–8 (Table 2) is shown in Fig. 1a. This wavenumber range corresponds to a spatial decorrelation length scale of ∼1500 km, the distance at which autocorrelation falls to e1/2. Although a comparison of Fig. 1a with Figs. 1b and 1c of Lang et al. (2021) confirms that the patterns in F fall within the 1000–2000-km range, the conversion between decorrelation length scale- and wavenumber-based definitions is nontrivial and will appear in a separate document currently in preparation.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

(a) Sample spatial pattern of F(Λ, ϕ, t), for the perturbation range [−2.5, 2.5] as used by the continuous ml_emod SPP element (Table 3). (b) An example of the discrete perturbation pattern for the deeptrig SPP element is shown. Field values are color filled following the color bars below each panel.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Table 2

Summary of primary configuration parameters for the stochastic field generator. Complete definitions can be found in the appendix.

Table 2

The demands of SPP for a large number of independent perturbation fields prompted an optimization effort within the stochastic field generator. As a result, addition of the full set of perturbation fields incurs a negligible computational cost. However, the use of a coarse-resolution global grid in the inverse transform of the spherical harmonics reduces the variance of F and creates anisotropy near the pole (Fig. 1; details are provided in the appendix). The configuration of the stochastic field generator will be updated to rectify these issues as part of ongoing system development.

b. SPP implementation in GEM

The stochastic fields F described above are used to perturb individual elements within the model (Table 3). There are two forms of perturbations: continuous and discrete. For continuous perturbations (Fig. 1a), F typically either takes on the values of a free parameter or serves as a multiplying factor. An exception to this basic application of continuous perturbations occurs in the form of SPP error models (section 3c). Discrete perturbations are designed to permit sampling of the uncertainty associated with algorithm formulation by allowing components of individual schemes to be employed in a stochastic framework. For example, the type of trigger function used for deep convection can be made to vary spatiotemporally in each ensemble member (Fig. 1b).

Table 3

Description of parameters and algorithms perturbed with the SPP scheme, split into subsections by grouping of physical processes. The elements that are employed in the full SPP configuration (section 4a) are identified with boldface type. The “Applications” column describes the role of F in perturbation design. It can take the values of Factor (F is used as a multiplying factor), Value (the values of a parameter are given by F), Closure (different closures are used depending on F), or Error Model (F is used in an error model as described in section 3c). The “Range” column refers to the limits imposed on F (FminFmax), and the “Shape” column refers to the width of the field distribution γ as defined in Table 2. Acronyms used in this table are as follows: BL indicates Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989), BLK indicates Blackadar (1962), BLK-BL indicates a blending of BL and BLK that is based on turbulence regime, KF indicates Kain and Fritsch (1993), KFU indicates Kain (2004), and TKE indicates turbulence kinetic energy–based trigger based on concepts introduced by Mapes (2000). The repeat count of acronyms in discrete range sets indicates the prevalence of the specified formulation across the grid.

Table 3

Candidate elements to be perturbed by the SPP scheme were identified by subject matter experts as those that were both uncertain and likely to have a significant impact on the model solution. The parameters for each F (Table 3) were constructed on the basis of this input and adjusted using spread-reliability evaluations (Leutbecher et al. 2007) in a rapid test configuration (not shown). Although a uniform sampling distribution (γ = 1) was prescribed for most SPP elements to maximize the scheme’s impact, the stochastic field generator yields distributions with a shape closer to γ = 1.45 as described in the appendix. This implicit use of an “informed prior” reduces the amplitude of SPP perturbations but is more consistent with parameter uncertainty (Posselt and Vukicevic 2010). Additional SPP elements are technically simple to introduce, a feature that makes the scheme highly flexible as new potential error sources are identified.

The use of 36-h relaxation τ for the majority of perturbations (Table 3) is consistent with the long time scales employed in other SPP implementations (Lang et al. 2021) and in the stochastic tendency perturbations used by the GEPS until December 2021 (Houtekamer et al. 2009). The SPP scheme’s impact depends on τ and other leading parameters that define F: a study is currently under way to quantify these sensitivities.

c. SPP error models

If uncertainty in the value of a given parameter or the formulation of a closure is flow dependent, then the associated perturbations should adapt themselves to reflect this reality. Such uncertainty awareness is possible when multiple estimates (N > 1) of a single quantity χ are available: an “error model” can be designed to scale perturbation amplitude by the diversity in these estimates. Under the assumption that the uncertainty of χ is reflected in the range of the N computed values (χi=1,…,N), the perturbed χ′ samples around the unperturbed configuration χ° using the error model
χ=χ°+F(χ°χ)2,
where angle brackets indicate the mean of the N estimates and F is centered on zero.
A concrete example of an error model as an SPP element appears in the ml_emod configuration (sections 4b and 5b). The turbulent mixing length λ in the boundary layer scheme is computed using the Blackadar (1962) estimate in the control [χ° in Eq. (3)], with perturbations constructed on the basis of the difference between this estimate and one computed using the approach proposed by Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989). With only one alternative estimate available (subscript “alt”), Eq. (3) is simplified to
χ=χ°+F|χ°χalt|,
a form that yields results similar to Eq. (3) when the range of F is suitably rescaled (not shown).

Using either Eq. (3) or Eq. (4), the error model amplifies perturbations under conditions in which differing closures yield divergent estimates of χ. The distributions of the perturbations are centered on the unperturbed value, a prerequisite for the development of an ensemble whose perturbed-member climates resemble that of the control. The SPP elements that employ error models are shown below to have significant impacts on the forecast skill of the ensemble.

4. Ensemble predictions with SPP

The success of the SPP scheme as a representation of model uncertainty will ultimately be determined by its ability to improve ensemble forecast skill. This implies that the spread generated by SPP should accurately reflect flow-dependent forecast error. The impact of the full SPP scheme on GEPS guidance is introduced in section 4a. The large number of perturbed parameters, however, makes it difficult to identify the sources of forecast improvements. This task is undertaken in section 4b, where the sensitivity to individual SPP elements is assessed.

a. Model uncertainty representation by SPP

A necessary condition for a well-balanced ensemble is that error and spread growth rates be similar. Confirming this behavior would be an important milestone because SPP schemes have been found to suffer from underdispersion (Ollinaho et al. 2017). For this analysis, error is defined as the unbiased RMSE estimator1 of the ensemble mean (RMSEu) for state variable x:
RMSEu(x)={[μe(x)y]2¯1M(M1)j=1M[xjμe(x)]2¯}1/2=[RMSE2(x)1Mσe2(x)]1/2,
where j indexes each of the M = 20 perturbed members, y is the analyzed value, μe is the ensemble mean, σe2 is the unbiased ensemble variance estimator, and overbars indicate spatiotemporal averages. In a perfect ensemble, RMSEu(x) = σe(x) (Leutbecher and Palmer 2007).

The SPP scheme yields global spread growth that closely mirrors RMSEu in the middle and upper troposphere (Figs. 2a,b). Temperatures at the top of the boundary layer remain under-dispersed throughout the 15-day forecast as a result of insufficient spread in the initializations and a suppressed spread growth rate over the first 48 h of integration (Fig. 2c). The SPP scheme does not contribute to an increase in the error of the ensemble mean, a result that is consistent with the scheme’s objective to represent random errors within regions of enhanced uncertainty.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Evolution of global spread and error of (a),(d) 250-hPa zonal wind; (b),(e) 500-hPa geopotential height; and (c),(f) 850-hPa temperature in control and SPP-based ensembles, showing (left) the spread (dashed lines) and RMSEu [solid lines; Eq. (5)] for the control (black) and SPP-based (red) integrations and (right) the fractional contribution of the SPP scheme to ensemble spread computed using Eq. (2), expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf). Also shown in (d)–(f) are color-shaded backgrounds for the forecast pentads.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The SPP scheme’s fractional contribution Cf to ensemble spread [J = σe(x) in Eq. (2)] reaches a maximum of ∼18% in pentad-1 forecasts (Fig. 2, second column). A comparison of model uncertainty representations in section 3 of Part II shows that this is comparable to the contributions of schemes used in the operational GEPS. The peak Cf for upper-level winds (Fig. 2d) is delayed because few SPP elements directly affect this quantity; instead, spread appears to develop through balance adjustments to mass-field perturbations. The decay of SPP’s relative contribution at longer lead times is the result of saturation as the ensemble approaches its climatological dispersion.

A more complete overview of the ensemble’s response to the full SPP scheme is shown in Fig. 3. The first column suggests that the spread increases noted in Fig. 2 are largest in the tropics (Fig. 3b), although the scheme also contributes to diversity in the northern (winter) midlatitudes and to near-surface spread in pentad-1 forecasts in the southern (summer) midlatitudes. The greater longevity of significant SPP contributions in the tropics (Fig. 3b) is a reflection of the slower approach to climatological spread in areas where moist baroclinic growth is not a primary driver of variability (Judt 2020). These process-level distinctions in the GEPS response imply that all sensitivities must be assessed in the tropical and midlatitude regions independently.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Summary of fractional contributions of the full SPP scheme (left) to ensemble standard deviation and (right) to fCRPS in the (a),(d) northern midlatitudes (25°–70°N); (b),(e) tropics (25°N–25°S); and (c)–(f) southern midlatitudes (25°–70°S). Each panel shows contributions, expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf), to the 250-hPa zonal wind (U250; first panel row), 500-hPa geopotential height (Z500; second panel row), 850-hPa temperature (T850; third panel row), 850-hPa specific humidity (Q850; fourth panel row), screen-level temperature (T2m; fifth panel row), and sea level pressure (SLP; sixth panel row). Contributions are averaged over pentads as indicated on the abscissa, with color filling following the color bar. The values of contributions that exceed 0.1% and are assessed to be significant at the 99% level using a 1000-member bootstrap test (increased from the 95% used elsewhere in this study to reduce the prevalence of type-I errors associated with multiple comparisons) are shown explicitly on the plot.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The impact of SPP on probabilistic forecast skill is evaluated through the scheme’s contribution to the fair continuous ranked probability score [fCRPS; (Ferro et al. 2008; Fricker et al. 2013)]. This Cf is computed using Eq. (2), with J representing fCRPS¯ defined following Leutbecher (2019) as follows:
fCRPS[(xj)M,y]=1Mj=1M|xjy|12M(M1)j=1Mk=1M|xjxk|,
where subscripts j and k refer to members. The fair variant differs from the standard score to correct for the limited ensemble size.

The full SPP scheme reduces the fCRPS in all regions, indicative of forecast skill improvements (second column of Fig. 3). The largest impact of SPP is in the tropics, where significant forecast improvements are observed for all variables and lead times. In the midlatitudes, significant fCRPS reductions are generally restricted to lower-tropospheric temperatures and are most apparent in pentad 1.

Although these summary evaluations suggest that the SPP scheme improves ensemble behavior in the aggregate, a more refined assessment of the relationship between spread and error is possible using spread-reliability diagrams (Leutbecher et al. 2007). A well-balanced ensemble that reliably discriminates between high- and low-predictability conditions will have a distribution that falls along the diagonal of these plots; however, the limited GEPS ensemble size will tend to flatten this slope. An analysis of 72-h forecasts of 850-hPa temperature and 250-hPa zonal wind illustrates the impact of SPP on the ensemble from the spread-reliability perspective (Fig. 4). The control ensemble is underdispersed in all regions because it does not sufficiently account for uncertainties within the model. The slope of the distribution suggests that spread and error are well coupled in the midlatitudes (Figs. 4a,c); however, steepness in the tropics implies that large errors can develop in regions without increased spread (Fig. 4b). The SPP scheme shifts all distributions toward the diagonal, a result that is consistent across variables and lead times (not shown). This suggests that the SPP scheme implemented in GEPS improves the ensemble’s ability to depict the flow-dependent nature of spread and error growth.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Spread-reliability diagrams (Leutbecher et al. 2007) for 72-h forecasts of (left) 850-hPa temperature and (right)250-hPa zonal winds in the control (black) and SPP-based (red) ensembles in (a),(d) the northern midlatitudes; (b),(e) the tropics; and (c),(f) the southern midlatitudes. Filled circles indicate means for 5-percentile bins, and filled squares indicate the overall means for the ensembles. The ideal 1:1 reference is shown with a dashed gray line. Note that the ranges of the tropical [in (b)] and midlatitude [in (a) and (c)] diagrams differ to reflect regional differences in spread and error. Both spread and error are normalized by the climatological standard deviation, computed using the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Dee et al. 2011) for the period 1989–2016.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

b. Sensitivity to individual SPPs

The full SPP scheme comprises independent perturbations to numerous model components (Table 3), making it difficult to identify direct relationships between specific perturbations and the ensemble results described above. Such information, however, is extremely valuable to ensemble system designers, model developers and researchers interested in understanding how model uncertainties affect forecast error growth. Only candidate SPP elements that have a neutral or positive impact on GEPS performance from the spread or fCRPS perspective are considered for adoption in the full SPP configuration. Those with neutral impacts are included if they possess strong physical justification, often in the form of well-documented uncertainties, or if they are known to affect particular forms of high impact weather that are not well described by summary statistics.

In this section, sensitivity tests based on a minimized ensemble configuration (section 2; M = 10) are used to assess the impact of each SPP element in isolation. This framework reproduces the summary statistics of the full GEPS (Table 4), at a nearly 20-fold decrease in computational cost. Because of the potential for interactions between perturbations, the sensitivities identified by activating each SPP element in isolation will not sum to the total sensitivity shown in Fig. 3 (Posselt and Vukicevic 2010). However, this set of tests will make it possible to characterize the direct impact of each SPP element and to identify the most important perturbations so that they can be examined in more detail in section 5. The SPP elements are grouped by process as in Table 3 for this discussion to divide the large volume of information into physically relevant subsets.

Table 4

Globally averaged pentad-1 contribution [Eq. (2); percentage computed as 100 × Cf] to the fCRPS by the SPP scheme using the full 20-member, 44-case GEPS ensemble (“Full Ensemble” column) and the minimized 10-member, 14-case experimental design (“Minimized Ensemble” column). Differences between the SPP-based experiments and the control that are statistically significant at the 99% level according to a 1000-member bootstrap test are shown in boldface type. A similar level of similarity is found for the tropics and midlatitudes individually (not shown).

Table 4

1) SPP element sensitivity: Surface and boundary layer

Perturbations to elements related to turbulent transport in the planetary boundary layer are highly effective at generating spread and improving forecast skill (Fig. 5). The ensemble is particularly sensitive to the perturbation of surface exchange coefficients (fh_mult and fm_mult) and to the representation of the mixing length (ml_emod and longmel). Because of the large impact that these SPP elements have on the solution, they will be analyzed in more detail in sections 5a and 5b, respectively. In addition to their large amplitudes, these sensitivities are unique in their geographical scope, which extends through the midlatitudes in both hemispheres.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to turbulent transport in the surface and boundary layer. Fractional contributions to (a)–(c) ensemble spread and (d)–(f) fCRPS are plotted as in Fig. 3, except that the temporal abscissa is replaced by individual SPP elements (Table 3) such that each column in the panels represents pentad-1 sensitivity diagnosed from an independent test. The names of elements that are included in the full SPP configuration (section 4a) are shown in black, and those that were rejected are shown in gray. The range of the color bars has been reduced from the values used in Fig. 3 because of the limited amplitude of individual SPP element contributions.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Other SPP elements related to the boundary layer have a limited impact on the ensemble metrics shown here; however, their intent is to sample uncertainties associated with specific conditions that are not well represented by summary statistics. The perturbations in ricmin sample uncertainty in the value of the critical Richardson number for turbulence transitions, a quantity that influences the model’s representation of freezing rain profiles (McTaggart-Cowan and Zadra 2015). Similarly, uncertainty in the transport of turbulence kinetic energy affects surface temperatures under very stable conditions but does not have a significant impact on hemispheric-scale statistics. Such elements are retained in the SPP configuration because their flow-dependent sensitivities may be particularly relevant to predictions of high impact weather events.

2) SPP element sensitivity: Moist convection

Despite the known limitations of convection parameterizations (Molinari and Dudek 1992; Arakawa 2004) and their impacts on forecast skill (Rodwell et al. 2013; Lillo and Parsons 2017), sensitivity to SPP elements related to moist convection is relatively small, particularly in the midlatitudes over the period of interest [Fig. 6; (Reynolds et al. 2011)]. Perturbation of the cloud updraft radius (crad_mult) yields significant improvements in the tropics, likely because this element samples uncertainties in the entrainment and detrainment rates that affect cloud depth and transport profiles (de Rooy et al. 2013). Perturbing the formulation of the trigger function for deep convection (deeptrig) introduces significant variability (Suhas and Zhang 2014); however, the worsening of a warm bias at 850 hPa (not shown) increases the fCRPS and precludes the use of this element in the full SPP configuration. Despite this problem, the limited sensitivity to perturbations within the existing trigger (kfctrig4, kfctrigwl and kfctrigwh) suggests that sampling formulation uncertainty has the potential to contribute to forecast skill improvements in the future (Li et al. 2008).

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to moist convection, plotted as in Fig. 5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The other convective element not adopted in the proposed SPP configuration (bkf_evaps) also has a primarily positive impact on the fCRPS. Allowing a variable fraction of detrained shallow convective condensate to be evaporated within the scheme, as opposed to being handled by gridscale condensation, favorably cools the lower troposphere but worsens the 500-hPa tropical height bias to increase the fCRPS (Figs. 6e and 7). This outcome highlights the impact of both a tropical surface pressure bias (negative 1000-hPa height bias in Fig. 7b) and an indirect perturbation response, here in the form of reduced deep convective heating in the upper troposphere (Fig. 7a). These sensitivities also illustrate a problem with perturbations to quantities whose limiting values are employed in the control configuration. Assuming a linear response, centering the ensemble mean on the control member requires symmetric perturbations. In this case, all detrained condensate in the control member is passed to the gridscale scheme, such that perturbations can only act to reduce the transfer. This creates a conceptual problem for such SPP elements, which in this case manifests as an increased bias and fCRPS degradation.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Ensemble mean pentad-1 profiles of (a) temperature and (b) geopotential height biases over the tropical oceans (25°S–25°N) in the control (black) and bkf_evaps (red) ensembles. Differences between the ensembles that are determined to be significant at the 95% level based on a 1000-member bootstrap are identified with solid circles on the profile with the smallest absolute bias value.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

3) SPP element sensitivity: Gridscale clouds and radiation

Perturbations to parameters within the gridscale condensation scheme and affecting cloud–radiation interactions generally have relatively little impact on the summary metrics shown in Fig. 8, although sampling uncertainty in the relative humidity threshold required for cloud formation in the lower troposphere [hu0max; (Li et al. 2008)] yields modest fCRPS improvements. Other SPP elements in this group are adopted for the full SPP configuration because of known uncertainties. For example, the concept of effective ice particle radius is ill-defined for current microphysical schemes given the range of cloud–radiation interactions possible for different crystal habits (McFarquhar and Heymsfield 1998). Sampling this uncertainty with the rei_mult element is physically justified and has a direct effect on high-cloud albedo estimates (Fig. 9a). Despite minimal sensitivity in the summary statistics (Fig. 8), this change in reflection can have a large impact on the local surface energy budget (±20%; Fig. 9b) and is known to affect both tropospheric stability and tropical cyclogenesis (Caron et al. 2012).

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to gridscale clouds, cloud–radiation interactions, and radiative transfer, plotted as in Fig. 5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Sensitivity of (a) the visible (solar) albedo at the top of the atmosphere and (b) incoming visible radiation at the surface to the rei_mult SPP element for grid cells with overcast high cloud (7–8 octas) between 70°S and 70°N over the first 24 h of integration. Pairwise differences are computed at 6-h intervals between rei_mult and the control ensemble members using a 25-gridpoint subsampling to promote independence. The percentage change in (b) is computed by dividing such a difference by the value in the control ensemble. A kernel density estimate of the scatterplot is shown in solid black lines for reference. The best-fit linear model is shown with the dashed red line, with R2 values annotated on the panels. The perturbation origin (F = 1 and zero response) is indicated with dashed gray lines.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Perturbation of the highly parameterized subgrid-scale cloud variability estimate [hetero_mult; (Oreopoulos and Barker 1999)] induces systematic upper-level cooling that increases the fCRPS, rendering this element unsuitable for the full SPP configuration. Further efforts will be required to determine the optimal approach for sampling this uncertainty.

4) SPP element sensitivity: Momentum and dynamics

Sensitivities to SPP elements related to momentum transport and dry dynamics are shown in Fig. 10. Those affecting parameterized drag processes (sgo_phic and rmscon) have minimal impacts on the summary statistics; however, perturbing the velocity spectrum of nonorographic gravity waves promotes diversity in the wave-breaking layers of the upper stratosphere. Evaluations using satellite data show that the additional spread is beneficial for the assimilation component of the GEPS (these improvements will be documented in a forthcoming paper).

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

Summary of sensitivities to SPP elements related to momentum transport and dry dynamics, plotted as in Fig. 5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The two SPP elements that perturb quantities outside the physical-parameterizations suite are adv_rhsint and phycpl (Fig. 10). The former uses an error model to estimate uncertainty within the advection scheme and will be discussed in more detail in section 5c. The latter shows that the choice of dynamics-physics coupling strategy has a significant impact on forecast quality (Gross et al. 2018). Activating the phycpl SPP element replaces the split-explicit treatment of the model components with the implicit handling of a portion of the total physics tendencies. This decreases ensemble spread because the implicit tendency treatment damps variance over a broad range of wavenumbers (Fig. 11). Although arguably occurring at scales that are unpredictable by the end of pentad-1 forecasts, this spread reduction increases the fCRPS through the second term on the rhs of Eq. (6). This degradation precludes the adoption of the phycpl element in the full SPP configuration. Further investigation will be required to determine whether this sensitivity is indicative of true uncertainty in the system that should be sampled as a potential source of model error, or whether the current approach is simply optimal for the adopted model configuration.

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

Contribution by the phycpl SPP element to (a) the mean global kinetic energy spectrum for 250-hPa zonal wind and (b) the mean global 850-hPa temperature variance spectrum after 120 h of integration. This contribution is computed using Eq. (2) and is expressed as a percentage (100 × Cf) such that negative values are associated with a decrease in spectral variance. The 95% confidence interval for the sensitivity is shown in light gray shading, with intervals that do not reach 0 (horizontal gray dashed line) indicative of significant departures based on a 1000-member bootstrap.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

5. Leading SPP parameters

The preceding analysis of individual SPP element sensitivities reveals a broad range of responses to the stochastic perturbations. Even if the level of uncertainty in two parameters is of the same order, perturbations may have significantly different impacts on the solution as a result of differing and possibly flow-dependent sensitivities within the model. In this section, the SPP elements that were found to have the largest impacts on the GEPS are analyzed in more detail to provide physical explanations for the behavior of the SPP-based ensemble.

a. Surface exchange coefficient perturbations

Perturbations to the surface turbulent exchange coefficients for scalars (fh_mult) and momentum (fm_mult) have large impacts on ensemble spread and fCRPS at a global scale (Fig. 5). Surface fluxes Fx are computed using the bulk flux formula
Fx=Cx(xaxs),
with x as temperature T, specific humidity q, or wind components V = (u, υ) at the lowest model level (subscript “a”) and the surface (subscript “s”), modulated by exchange coefficients Cx. The interfacial flux Bx that serves as the lower boundary condition for the implicit solution of boundary layer equations is perturbed to yield
Bx=FFx=FCx(xaxs)=Cx(xaxs),
with F = [0.5, 1, 5], where the final equality shows that the fh_mult and fm_mult SPP elements represent exchange coefficient perturbations for the boundary layer scheme (Cx=FCx). They thereby directly affect heat and momentum transfers within the atmospheric column rather than adjusting the surface fluxes themselves.

The multiplicative scaling used in Eq. (8) means that the direct impacts of these perturbations are maximized in regions where turbulent surface exchanges are typically large (Fig. 12; results shown only for fh_mult because of the large sensitivity shown in Fig. 5). Differences therefore peak along the western boundary currents (Munk 1950) and cold outbreak regions in the Northern Hemisphere winter (Fletcher et al. 2016; Smith and Sheridan 2020), and over landmasses in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere (summer). The enhanced spread in continental regions is accompanied by a significant decrease in the fCRPS, indicating that the broad perturbations range reflects underlying uncertainty in the forecasts.

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12.

Sensitivity of (a) screen-level temperature spread (°C) and (b) fCRPS (°C) to the fh_mult SPP element, computed as differences with respect to the control ensemble averaged over pentad 1. Differences that are determined to be statistically significant for a false discovery rate (Wilks 2016) of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap are dark-shaded following the bottom color bar on each panel, and those that fail to meet this level of significance are light-shaded following the top color bar.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

In the North Atlantic Ocean, northerly flow in the wake of oceanic cyclones (Tilinina et al. 2018) and high winds associated with the Greenland tip jet (Doyle and Shapiro 1999) draw Arctic air across the extensive ice edge to create an environment conducive to frequent large-flux events (Papritz and Spengler 2017; Geerts et al. 2022). Despite symmetric perturbations to Bx, the fh_mult ensemble predicts colder screen-level temperatures in this region (Figs. 13a,b). This cooling occurs despite locally increased surface heat fluxes (Figs. 13c,d) as a nonlinear response to this SPP element. For F0.8, reduced Bx values severely limit atmospheric heating and prevent the erosion of the Arctic inversion. The persistence of the very stable boundary layer regime (Abraham and Monahan 2019) yields near-surface temperatures that remain colder than in the control (Fig. 14a). The increased air-sea temperature difference subsequently enhances the unperturbed heat fluxes across the interface [Eq. (7) and Fig. 14b]. Because this process is active under specific conditions favored in the North Atlantic, its influence on globally averaged fluxes remains small (<0.2 W m−2). An experiment in which F is restricted to the linear response range in Fig. 14 (0.8F1.2) successfully eliminates the temperature bias noted in Fig. 13; however, this ensemble suffers from a significant reduction in forecast skill improvement relative to the full fh_mult configuration (not shown). It therefore seems reasonable to accept that such changes in the mean state represent a true nonlinear response to a potential error source within the model rather than a failure of the SPP strategy in this case.

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13.

(a) Ensemble mean screen-level temperature (T2m; °C) and (c) surface turbulent sensible heat flux (SHF; W m−2) averaged over pentad 1 in the control. (b),(d) The difference of means computed as fh_mult minus control are shown using the same units. Differences that are found to be significant for a false discovery rate of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap are dark-shaded following the lower color bar, and those that fail to reach this level of significance are light-shaded following the upper color bar of each panel. The North Atlantic region used for further investigation of perturbation-induced changes is outlined in black in (b) and (d).

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Fig. 14.
Fig. 14.

Oceanic (a) screen-level temperature and (b) sensible heat flux responses to exchange coefficient perturbations in the fh_mult ensemble averaged over the North Atlantic region (Figs. 13b,d). Pairwise differences are computed at 6-h intervals between the fh_mult and control ensemble members and plotted using dots that are color coded with the value of the quantity in the fh_mult ensemble as shown on the color bars. The sensible heat flux shown in (b) is computed from Eq. (7) before perturbations are applied. A kernel density estimate of the scatterplot is shown in solid black lines for reference. The best-fit linear model for perturbations over the range [0.8–1.2] (bounds highlighted with vertical green dashed lines) is shown with the dashed red line, and the average temperature departure for 10 perturbation percentile bins is shown with the blue line and blue points at the bin centroids. The perturbation origin (F = 1 and zero response) is indicated with dashed gray lines. The response time of these surface layer properties (min) is short relative to the perturbation time scale (τ = 36 h). As a result, these relationships are robust throughout the 5-day integration, with the perturbation-induced divergence of solutions leading only to increased dispersion of the points (not shown).

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

b. Uncertainties in the boundary layer mixing length

Both representations of uncertainty in the boundary layer mixing-length estimate shown in Fig. 5 (ml_emod and longmel) significantly influence ensemble behavior. This quantity modulates turbulent mixing-induced tendencies, which are computed via the K-theory diffusion analog as follows:
xt=z[Kx(xzΓ)],
for x ∈ {T, q, u, υ}, where z is height and Γ depicts nongradient transport. In the adopted 1.5-order closure, the turbulent diffusion coefficient Kx is estimated as follows:
KxλE,
where E is the turbulence kinetic energy and λ is the mixing length, a height scale associated with Prandtl’s 1925 theory (Bradshaw 1974). Because of uncertainty in the estimate of λ, three distinct formulations are available within the model’s parameterization suite (Table 3).

The longmel SPP element makes direct use of the multiple λ estimates to sample uncertainty by adopting different closures through discrete perturbations (section 3b). Despite this introduction of spatiotemporal algorithmic variability, the longmel SPP element has limited impact on ensemble spread within the boundary layer (Fig. 15a) and leads to a bias-induced deterioration in the fCRPS at higher latitudes (Fig. 15b). Improved fCRPS values in the stratocumulus regions also originate from bias changes (not shown), suggesting that the Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989) λ introduced in this configuration may yield locally improved basic states. Overall, however, the longmel SPP element leads to significant deteriorations that preclude its adoption in the GEPS configuration (Fig. 5).

Fig. 15.
Fig. 15.

Sensitivity of (a),(c) 850-hPa temperature spread (°C) and (b),(d) fCRPS (°C) for the (left) longmel and (right) ml_emod ensembles. Plotting follows the conventions employed in Fig. 12, except that regions in which surface pressure is less than 850 hPa are masked with light-green shading.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The mixing-length error model employed by the ml_emod SPP element proves to be more successful in sampling uncertainty in λ without introducing systematic errors (Figs. 15c,d). The Blackadar (1962) and Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989) estimates are used in Eq. (4) as χ° and χalt, respectively, for F = [−2.5, 2.5]. This symmetric range is intended to center λ perturbations around the control; however, λ values are larger in ml_emod than in the control ensemble, particularly in regions with increased λ spread (Fig. 16). Results from a representative case study show that the perturbation-broadened distribution of λ (shallower slope of the cumulative distribution in Fig. 17a) includes negative values. These are the result of large differences between λ estimates, which occur primarily under stable conditions in which λ200m (Fig. 17b). The application of a standard limit of λ ≥ 1 m prevents numerical errors and yields near-zero diffusion coefficients consistent with a very stable environment [Eq. (10)]. As a result, there is physical symmetry in the turbulent-transport response to the perturbations despite truncation of the small-λ end of the distribution. This outcome combines with the positive impact of the ml_emod SPP element (Fig. 5) to justify its inclusion in the GEPS configuration.2 However, care will have to be taken in the design of future error models to mitigate such behavior in cases in which imposing a lower bound is not appropriate.

Fig. 16.
Fig. 16.

Mixing-length properties (m) at model hybrid level ∼0.92 (∼500 m above the surface) averaged over pentad 1. Shown are (a) the mean mixing length in the control ensemble, (b) the mean difference between the ml_emod and control ensemble (computed as ml_emod minus control), and (c) the difference in ensemble standard deviation [computed as for (b)]. Values are color coded according to the color bars at the bottom of each panel, with dark shading in (b) and (c) indicative of difference that are statistically significant for a false discovery rate of 5% based on a 1000-member bootstrap. The North Pacific domain used in Fig. 17 is outlined in black in (b) and (c).

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Fig. 17.
Fig. 17.

Properties of mixing-length estimates at hybrid level ∼0.92 (∼500 m above the surface) over the North Pacific basin (outlined in black in Figs. 16b,c) for a control simulation initialized at 0000 UTC 19 Jan 2020 with perturbed mixing-length diagnostics obtained by piggyback calculations (Grabowski 2014): (a) the cumulative frequency distributions of the Blackadar (1962) (black), Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989) (blue), and perturbed (red) mixing lengths, with the unphysical region λ < 0 gray shaded, and (b) the relationship between the two estimates, with green dots for individual points and a kernel density estimate in solid black lines (powers of 2 used for contour intervals; “e−0X” indicates multiplication by 10 raised to the −X power). The 1:1 line appears in gray dashes for reference. The regions in which large absolute values of F could lead to a negative perturbed mixing length for the [−2.5, 2.5] range used in the ml_emod ensemble are computed via Eq. (4) and are shown with gray shading, and the equivalent for [−0.5, 0.5] is shown with a thin red dashed line. These plots are computed from data at 6-hourly intervals that are spatially subsampled at 10-gridpoint intervals to limit data volume and promote independence.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

The use of multiple λ estimates has the disadvantage of incurring additional computational cost, with model run time increased by 28%. However, restricting the Bougeault and Lacarrère (1989) calculations to lower levels (2500m AGL) reduces the added cost to just 2% while yielding qualitatively identical results (Table 5). Although this configuration was identified too late in the development cycle for implementation in the 2021 GEPS upgrade, it suggests that SPP error models may benefit from having multiple “cheap” inputs rather than a very limited number of computationally intensive estimates.

Table 5

Globally averaged pentad-1 fractional contribution [Eq. (2), in percentage as 100 × Cf] to the ensemble spread and fCRPS by the ml_emod SPP element and a sensitivity test using the “height restricted” form of the error model described in the text. Differences between the SPP-based experiments and the control that are statistically significant at the 99% level according to a 1000-member bootstrap test are shown in boldface type.

Table 5

c. Advection error model

Although the large majority of SPP elements focus on components of the physical parameterization suite, uncertainties that exist within the dynamical core can have significant impacts on ensemble statistics (Fig. 10). The net effect of these potential error sources is represented in this implementation by the adv_rhsint SPP element, which uses an error model to sample uncertainty in the advection scheme. The semi-Lagrangian formulation begins by determining the departure point of the trajectory that arrives at each grid point over a time step. The advected quantities must then be interpolated to the departure point to give the upstream value: cubic polynomials are typically used for this operation in GEM (Fig. 18). The adv_rhsint error model samples uncertainties in these calculations by using cubic and linear interpolation estimates as χ° and χalt in Eq. (4) with F = [−0.4, 0.4].

Fig. 18.
Fig. 18.

Schematic description of upstream-point interpolation in a 1D semi-Lagrangian advection scheme for fields with (a) large and (b) small local curvature. The advecting wind is blowing in the negative x direction at a speed sufficient to transport parcels 0.4 grid lengths in a time step (Courant number of 0.4) as shown with a black arrow between the gray dashed vertical lines that represent the trajectory bounds. The abscissa depicts grid points relative to the destination (0), and the ordinate displays values of the advected variable. Gridpoint values of the advected variable are shown with green dots. The cubic interpolating polynomial is shown in black, and the linear interpolating polynomial is shown in blue. At the upstream location, the advected-field value is shown with a red square for cubic interpolation and a red triangle for linear interpolation. Red dashed lines connect the interpolation positions to field values on the ordinate.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

This error model generates perturbations where local gradients are highly spatially variable, such that the first- and third-order interpolation estimates are likely to differ (Fig. 18a). In such regions, the effects of discretization combine with uncertainties associated with the interpolants themselves to yield a potentially important error source. Conversely, the range of values computed using the different polynomials will be relatively small where the advected quantities vary smoothly in space (Fig. 18b). Unlike the mixing length estimates described above, this error model incurs no additional computational cost because the linearly interpolated value is precomputed within the advection scheme.

Although the adv_rhsint SPP element reduces fCRPS in all regions (Fig. 10), its impact on ensemble spread is primarily tropical (Fig. 19a) because a latitudinal tapering is applied to F:
F=F{cos2(ϕϕo)if|ϕ|<ϕo0otherwise,
where F′ is used in Eq. (4) and ϕo = 45° in adv_rhsint. This heuristic is consistent with enhanced dynamical core sensitivity in the tropics (Subramanian et al. 2019) and prevents the direct injection of perturbations along the midlatitude waveguides (Hoskins et al. 1985), in which both spread and error grow rapidly if it is not applied (Figs. 19c,d). This suggests that although adv_rhsint can effectively identify regions with enhanced uncertainty in adiabatic dynamics, it induces perturbations that exceed the associated errors. Refinement of SPP within the dynamical core will require the identification of additional algorithmic uncertainties, such that smaller-amplitude perturbations can be introduced in closer connection to error sources.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 19.

Sensitivity of (a),(c) 500-hPa height spread (m) and (b),(d) fCRPS (m) for the (left) adv_rhsint and (right) uniform ensembles. The latter configuration does not use the modulation defined in Eq. (11). Plotting follows the conventions employed in Fig. 12. The climatological position of the East Asian subtropical jet (Luo and Zhang 2015) is identified with an arrow on each panel for reference in Fig. 20 below and is labeled as EASJ in (a).

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

Despite the restriction of adv_rhsint perturbations to tropical regions [Eq. (11)], 500-hPa height forecasts improve at high latitudes in the North Pacific basin (Fig. 19b). This sensitivity originates primarily within the East Asian subtropical jet (Yang et al. 2002; Luo and Zhang 2015) in the form of enhanced ensemble spread (Figs. 19a and 20a). The perturbations appear to promote diversity in the initiation of Rossby wave packets (Röthlisberger et al. 2018), which propagate downstream at rates that fall between the expected phase speed (cp ≈ 10 m s−1) and group velocity (cg ≈ 20 m s−1; Fragkoulidis and Wirth 2020). The associated fCRPS improvements (Fig. 20b) suggest that the perturbations are effectively identifying uncertainty in this tropical–extratropical interaction and the resulting Rossby wave evolution (Wirth et al. 2018). Although perturbations deeper within the tropics are sometimes associated with Rossby wave initiation (Stan et al. 2017), an experiment in which ϕo = 30 [Eq. (11)] shows that this indirect mode of communication is relatively inefficient (Figs. 20c,d). The ability of adv_rhsint to represent the remote impact of tropical uncertainties, thereby reducing the fCRPS in all domains (Fig. 10), makes it an important component of the SPP configuration for the GEPS.

Fig. 20.
Fig. 20.

Hovmöller diagrams (Persson 2017) of the fractional contribution [Eq. (2), in percentage as 100 × Cf] of the adv_rhsint SPP element to (a),(c) 500-hPa height ensemble spread and (b),(d) fCRPS for (left) standard latitude modulation [Eq. (11)] with ϕo = 45° and (right) an ensemble with ϕo = 30°. Dashed black lines indicate the phase speed (cp ≈ 10 m s−1) and group velocity (cg ≈ 20 m s−1) for Rossby waves initiated at the western and eastern ends of the east Asian subtropical jet, respectively [the climatological jet position is indicated with a heavy green line at the top of each panel (Luo and Zhang 2015), consistent with Fig. 19].

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 11; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0315.1

6. Discussion

The SPP scheme implemented in GEM employs spatiotemporally correlated random fields as the basis for perturbations to free parameters, physical closures and the dynamical core. These perturbations represent inherent uncertainties in the model in an internally consistent way, yielding a diversity of solutions under conditions in which the associated errors adversely affect practical predictability.

The impacts of 27 SPP elements have been evaluated for potential inclusion in the GEPS. Together, the proposed configuration generates sufficient ensemble spread without increasing RMSEu. Individually, they trigger a broad range of responses in terms of contributions to ensemble spread and forecast skill. The spatial distributions of these sensitivities are closely related to the processes represented by the SPP elements themselves.

The perturbation-process connection is a conceptual strength of SPP; however, it introduces a high level of complexity into the system. The large number of degrees of freedom associated with the SPP technique makes identifying the optimal ensemble configuration a computationally intensive task. The extensive set of perturbations discussed here represents a small fraction of the potential error sources in