Abstract
Stochastic representation of forecast uncertainties has been taken into account to improve dynamical seasonal prediction. In this study, perturbing the dynamic tendency by a random number is introduced to account for inherent uncertainties associated with computational representations of the underlying partial differential equations that govern the atmospheric motion. Compared to the traditional approach to perturb the physical tendency, the sensitivity of fluctuations in forecast variables to the magnitude of random forcing is found to be greater in the case of perturbing the dynamical tendency. Realizing that the major advantage of stochastic tendency in traditional approaches lies in the increase in ensemble spread, our approach manifests a greater potential in the field of dynamical ensemble prediction. An evaluation of a simulated climate for a boreal summer demonstrates a significant enhancement in forecast skill in terms of the large-scale features and precipitation, when both the dynamical and physical tendencies are simultaneously perturbed. This finding implies that model uncertainties could be addressed in terms of not only the physical parameterization but also the dynamical portion that used to be regarded as deterministically solved.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Berner, J., T. Jung, and T. N. Palmer, 2012: Systematic model error: The impact of increased horizontal resolution versus improved stochastic and deterministic parameterizations. J. Climate, 25, 4946–4962.
Berner, J., G. J. Shutts, M. Leutbecher, and T. N. Palmer, 2009: A spectral stochastic kinetic energy backscatter scheme and its impact on flowdependent predictability in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 603–626.
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, 1972–1995.
Bishop, C. H., and K. T. Shanley, 2008: Bayesian model averaging’s problematic treatment of extreme weather and a paradigm shift that fixes it. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 4641–4652.
Buizza, R., 2010: Horizontal resolution impact on short- and long-range forecast error. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136, 1020–1035.
Buizza, R., M. Milleer, and T. N. Palmer, 1999: Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 2887–2908.
Buizza, R., P. L. Houtekamer, G. Pellerin, Z. Toth, Y. Zhu, and M. Wei, 2005: A comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP global ensemble prediction systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 1076–1097.
Covey, C., K. M. AchutaRao, U. Cubasch, P. Jones, S. J. Lambert, M. E. Mann, T. J. Phillips, and K. E. Taylor, 2003: An overview of results from the coupled model intercomparison project. Global Planet. Change, 37, 103–133.
Dai, A., 2006: Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models. J. Climate, 19, 4605–4630.
Dee, D. P., and Coauthors, 2011: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597.
Grell, G. A., and D. Dévényi, 2002: A generalized approach to parameterizing convection combining ensemble and data assimilation techniques. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 38–31–38–34.
Ham, S., and S.-Y. Hong, 2013: Sensitivity of simulated intraseasonal oscillation to four convective parameterization schemes in a coupled climate model. Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 49, 483–496.
Hong, S.-Y., and J. Dudhia, 2012: Next-generation numerical weather prediction: Bridging parameterization, explicit clouds, and large eddies. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, ES6–ES9.
Hong, S.-Y., M.-S. Koo, J. Jang, J.-E. Esther Kim, H. Park, M.-S. Joh, J.-H. Kang, and T.-J. Oh, 2013a: An evaluation of the software system dependency of a global atmospheric model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 4165–4172.
Hong, S.-Y., and Coauthors, 2013b: The Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs). Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 49, 219–243.
Jung, T., T. N. Palmer, and G. J. Shutts, 2005: Influence of a stochastic parameterization on the frequency of occurrence of North Pacific weather regimes in the ECMWF model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23811.
Kanamitsu, M., W. Ebisuzaki, J. Woollen, S.-K. Yang, J. J. Hnilo, M. Fiorino, and G. L. Potter, 2002: NCEP-DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 1631–1643.
Kang, H.-S., and S.-Y. Hong, 2008: Sensitivity of the simulated East Asian summer monsoon climatology to four convective parameterization schemes. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D151–9.
Krishnamurti, T. N., and J. Sanjay, 2003: A new approach to the cumulus parameterization issue. Tellus A, 55, 275–300.
Krishnamurti, T. N., K. Rajendran, T. S. V. Vijaya Kumar, S. Lord, Z. Toth, X. Zou, S. Cocke, J. E. Ahlquist, and I. M. Navon, 2003: Improved skill for the anomaly correlation of geopotential heights at 500 hPa. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131, 1082–1102.
LaRow, T. E., S. D. Cocke, and D. W. Shin, 2005: Multiconvective parameterizations as a multimodel proxy for seasonal climate studies. J. Climate, 18, 2963–2978.
Lorenz, E. N., 1963: Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 130–141.
Lorenz, E. N., 1969: The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion. Tellus, 21, 289–307.
Lorenz, E. N., 1975: Climate predictability. The physical basis of climate modelling WMO, Geneva: World Meteorological Oragnization, 132–136.
Molteni, F., and T. N. Palmer, 1993: Predictability and finite-time instability of the northern winter circulation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 119, 269–298.
Murphy, J. M., D. M. H. Sexton, D. N. Barnett, G. S. Jones, M. J. Webb, M. collins, and D. A. Stainforth, 2004: Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 4–0.
Palmer, T. N., R. Buizza, F. J. Doblas-Reyes, T. Jung, M. Leutbecher, G. J. Shutts, M. Steinheimer, and A. Weisheimer, 2009: Stochastic parametrization and model uncertainty. Tech. Memo. 598, ECMWF, 42 pp.
Reynolds, R. W., and T. M. Smith, 1994: Improved global sea surface temperature analyses using optimum interpolation. J. Climate, 7, 929–948.
Richardson, D. S., 2000: Skill and relative economic value of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 649–667.
Romps, D. M., 2012a: Weak pressure gradient approximation and its analytical solutions. J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 2835–2845.
Romps, D. M., 2012b: Numerical tests of the weak pressure gradient approximation. J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 2846–2856.
Shutts, G., 2005: A kinetic energy backscatter algorithm for use in ensemble prediction systems. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 3079–3102.
Stainforth, D. A., and Coauthors, 2005: Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greehouse gases. Nature, 4–3.
Tao, W.-K., D. Starr, A. Hou, P. Newman, and Y. Sud, 2003: A cumulus parameterization workshop. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 1055–1062.
Teixeira, J., C. A. Reynolds, and K. Judd, 2007: Time step sensitivity of nonlinear atmospheric models: Numerical convergence, truncation error growth, and ensemble design. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 175–189.
Weigel, A. P., M. A. Liniger, and C. Appenzeller, 2008: Can multi-model combination really enhance the prediction skill of probabilistic ensemble forecasts?. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 241–260.
Weisheimer, A., T. N. Palmer, and F. J. Doblas-Reyes, 2011: Assessment of representations of model uncertainty in monthly and seasonal forecast ensembles. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16703.
Xie, P., and P. A. Arkin, 1997: Global precipitation: A 17-year monthly analysis based on gauge observations, satellite estimates, and numerical model outputs. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 2539–2558.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koo, MS., Hong, SY. Stochastic representation of dynamic model tendency : Formulation and preliminary results. Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci 50, 497–506 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-014-0039-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-014-0039-0