Deep Learning Based Cloud Cover Parameterization for ICON

A promising approach to improve cloud parameterizations within climate models and thus climate projections is to use deep learning in combination with training data from storm-resolving model (SRM) simulations. The Icosahedral Non-Hydrostatic (ICON) modeling framework permits simulations ranging from numerical weather prediction to climate projections, making it an ideal target to develop neural network (NN) based parameterizations for sub-grid scale processes. Within the ICON framework, we train NN based cloud cover parameterizations with coarse-grained data based on realistic regional and global ICON SRM simulations. We set up three different types of NNs that differ in the degree of vertical locality they assume for diagnosing cloud cover from coarse-grained atmospheric state variables. The NNs accurately estimate sub-grid scale cloud cover from coarse-grained data that has similar geographical characteristics as their training data. Additionally, globally trained NNs can reproduce sub-grid scale cloud cover of the regional SRM simulation. Using the game-theory based interpretability library SHapley Additive exPlanations, we identify an overemphasis on specific humidity and cloud ice as the reason why our column-based NN cannot perfectly generalize from the global to the regional coarse-grained SRM data. The interpretability tool also helps visualize similarities and differences in feature importance between regionally and globally trained column-based NNs, and reveals a local relationship between their cloud cover predictions and the thermodynamic environment. Our results show the potential of deep learning to derive accurate yet interpretable cloud cover parameterizations from global SRMs, and suggest that neighborhood-based models may be a good compromise between accuracy and generalizability. Plain Language Summary Climate models, such as the ICON climate model, operate on low-resolution grids, making it computationally feasible to use them for climate projections. However, physical processes –especially those associated with clouds– that happen on a sub-grid scale (inside a grid box) cannot be resolved, yet they are critical for the climate. In this study, we train neural networks that return the cloudy fraction of a grid box knowing only lowresolution grid-box averaged variables (such as temperature, pressure, etc.) as the climate model sees them. We find that the neural networks can reproduce the sub-grid scale cloud fraction on data sets similar to the one they were trained on. The networks trained on global data also prove to be applicable on regional data coming from a model simulation with an entirely different setup. Since neural networks are often described as black boxes that are therefore difficult to trust, we peek inside the black box to reveal what input features the neural networks have learned to focus on and in what respect the networks differ. Overall, the neural networks prove to be accurate methods of reproducing sub-grid scale cloudiness and could improve climate model projections when implemented in a climate model.

[1]  Matthew Chantry,et al.  Machine Learning Emulation of Gravity Wave Drag in Numerical Weather Forecasting , 2021, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[2]  B. Stevens,et al.  Climate Statistics in Global Simulations of the Atmosphere, from 80 to 2.5 km Grid Spacing , 2020 .

[3]  A. Tompkins The parametrization of cloud cover , 2005 .

[4]  Stephan Mandt,et al.  Generative Modeling of Atmospheric Convection , 2020, CI.

[5]  G. Zängl,et al.  The ICON (ICOsahedral Non‐hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI‐M: Description of the non‐hydrostatic dynamical core , 2015 .

[6]  Paul A. O'Gorman,et al.  Use of neural networks for stable, accurate and physically consistent parameterization of subgrid atmospheric processes with good performance at reduced precision , 2020 .

[7]  B. Ahrens,et al.  Evaluation of the ground heat flux simulated by a multi-layer land surface scheme using high-quality observations at grass land and bare soil , 2016 .

[8]  K. Taylor,et al.  Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models , 2020, Science Advances.

[9]  Vincent E. Larson,et al.  CLUBB-SILHS: A parameterization of subgrid variability in the atmosphere , 2017, 1711.03675.

[10]  Machine Learning the Warm Rain Process , 2021, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[11]  Pierre Gentine,et al.  Towards Physically-consistent, Data-driven Models of Convection , 2020, ArXiv.

[12]  Daniel Klocke,et al.  Rediscovery of the doldrums in storm-resolving simulations over the tropical Atlantic , 2017, Nature Geoscience.

[13]  Xiaomeng Huang,et al.  A Moist Physics Parameterization Based on Deep Learning , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[14]  Robert Pincus,et al.  Paths to accuracy for radiation parameterizations in atmospheric models , 2013 .

[15]  Pierre Gentine,et al.  Could Machine Learning Break the Convection Parameterization Deadlock? , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[16]  S. Bony,et al.  A High-Altitude Long-Range Aircraft Configured as a Cloud Observatory: The NARVAL Expeditions , 2019, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

[17]  Avanti Shrikumar,et al.  Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences , 2017, ICML.

[18]  Noah D. Brenowitz,et al.  Spatially Extended Tests of a Neural Network Parametrization Trained by Coarse‐Graining , 2019, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[19]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences , 2019, Nature Communications.

[20]  Noah D. Brenowitz,et al.  Interpreting and Stabilizing Machine-Learning Parametrizations of Convection , 2020, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.

[21]  R. Hogan,et al.  Parameterizing the Difference in Cloud Fraction Defined by Area and by Volume as Observed with Radar and Lidar , 2005 .

[22]  Janni Yuval,et al.  Stable machine-learning parameterization of subgrid processes for climate modeling at a range of resolutions , 2020, Nature Communications.

[23]  Gary P. Griffith,et al.  Reflections and projections on a decade of climate science , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[24]  D. Chalikov,et al.  New Approach to Calculation of Atmospheric Model Physics: Accurate and Fast Neural Network Emulation of Longwave Radiation in a Climate Model , 2005 .

[25]  C. Schär,et al.  Climate Models Permit Convection at Much Coarser Resolutions Than Previously Considered , 2020, Journal of Climate.

[26]  Markus H. Gross,et al.  Gradient-Based Attribution Methods , 2019, Explainable AI.

[27]  Hirofumi Tomita,et al.  Shallow water model on a modified icosahedral geodesic grid by using spring dynamics , 2001 .

[28]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Deep Learning for the Parametrization of Subgrid Processes in Climate Models , 2021, Deep Learning for the Earth Sciences.

[29]  Jens Kattge,et al.  Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? , 2007 .

[30]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  A Fortran-Keras Deep Learning Bridge for Scientific Computing , 2020, Sci. Program..

[31]  B. Stevens,et al.  The Added Value of Large-eddy and Storm-resolving Models for Simulating Clouds and Precipitation , 2020 .

[32]  C. Walcek Cloud Cover and Its Relationship to Relative Humidity during a Springtime Midlatitude Cyclone , 1994 .

[33]  Alexander J. Winkler,et al.  Developments in the MPI‐M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI‐ESM1.2) and Its Response to Increasing CO2 , 2019, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[34]  G. Zängl,et al.  ICON‐A, the Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: I. Model Description , 2018, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[35]  E. Mlawer,et al.  Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave , 1997 .

[36]  Frédéric Chevallier,et al.  Use of a neural‐network‐based long‐wave radiative‐transfer scheme in the ECMWF atmospheric model , 2000 .

[37]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[38]  Pierre Gentine,et al.  Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  D. Stensrud Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models , 2007 .

[40]  S. Müller Convectively generated gravity waves and convective aggregation in numerical models of tropical dynamics , 2019 .

[41]  Shian-Jiann Lin,et al.  DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains , 2019, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science.

[42]  Axel Seifert,et al.  Potential and Limitations of Machine Learning for Modeling Warm‐Rain Cloud Microphysical Processes , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[43]  B. Grisogono,et al.  A Total Turbulent Energy Closure Model for Neutrally and Stably Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layers , 2007 .

[44]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  Climate goals and computing the future of clouds , 2017 .

[45]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks , 1991, Neural Networks.

[46]  Kuan-Man Xu,et al.  Evaluation of cloudiness parameterizations using a cumulus ensemble model , 1991 .

[47]  E. Clothiaux,et al.  Assessing 1D atmospheric solar radiative transfer models: Interpretation and handling of unresolved clouds , 2003 .

[48]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning , 2015, ICML.

[49]  A. Tompkins A Prognostic Parameterization for the Subgrid-Scale Variability of Water Vapor and Clouds in Large-Scale Models and Its Use to Diagnose Cloud Cover , 2002 .

[50]  Brandon M. Greenwell,et al.  Interpretable Machine Learning , 2019, Hands-On Machine Learning with R.

[51]  Jakob Runge,et al.  Causal networks for climate model evaluation and constrained projections , 2020, Nature Communications.

[52]  Ulrike Lohmann,et al.  Design and performance of a new cloud microphysics scheme developed for the ECHAM general circulation model , 1996 .

[53]  Noah D. Brenowitz,et al.  Prognostic Validation of a Neural Network Unified Physics Parameterization , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[54]  Akio Arakawa,et al.  CLOUDS AND CLIMATE: A PROBLEM THAT REFUSES TO DIE. Clouds of many , 2022 .

[55]  Robert Pincus,et al.  Balancing Accuracy, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Radiation Calculations for Dynamical Models , 2019, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.