Supplying Local Microphysics Parameterizations with Information about Subgrid Variability: Latin Hypercube Sampling

One problem in computing cloud microphysical processes in coarse-resolution numerical models is that many microphysical processes are nonlinear and small in scale. Consequently, there are inaccuracies if microphysics parameterizations are forced with grid box averages of model fields, such as liquid water content. Rather, the model needs to determine information about subgrid variability and input it into the microphysics parameterization. One possible solution is to assume the shape of the family of probability density functions (PDFs) associated with a grid box and sample it using the Monte Carlo method. In this method, the microphysics subroutine is called repeatedly, once with each sample point. In this way, the Monte Carlo method acts as an interface between the host model’s dynamics and the microphysical parameterization. This avoids the need to rewrite the microphysics subroutines. A difficulty with the Monte Carlo method is that it introduces into the simulation statistical noise or variance, associated with the finite sample size. If the family of PDFs is tractable, one can sample solely from cloud, thereby improving estimates of in-cloud processes. If one wishes to mitigate the noise further, one needs a method for reduction of variance. One such method is Latin hypercube sampling, which reduces noise by spreading out the sample points in a quasi-random fashion. This paper formulates a sampling interface based on the Latin hypercube method. The associated family of PDFs is assumed to be a joint normal/lognormal (i.e., Gaussian/lognormal) mixture. This method of variance reduction has a couple of advantages. First, the method is general: the same interface can be used with a wide variety of microphysical parameterizations for various processes. Second, the method is flexible: one can arbitrarily specify the number of hydrometeor categories and the number of calls to the microphysics parameterization per grid box per time step. This paper performs a preliminary test of Latin hypercube sampling. As a prototypical microphysical formula, this paper uses the Kessler autoconversion formula. The PDFs that are sampled are extracted diagnostically from large-eddy simulations (LES). Both stratocumulus and cumulus boundary layer cases are tested. In this diagnostic test, the Latin hypercube can produce somewhat less noisy time-averaged estimates of Kessler autoconversion than a traditional Monte Carlo estimate, with no additional calls to the microphysics parameterization. However, the instantaneous estimates are no less noisy. This paper leaves unanswered the question of whether the Latin hypercube method will work well in a prognostic, interactive cloud model, but this question will be addressed in a future manuscript.

[1]  Mary L. Boas,et al.  Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences , 1968 .

[2]  E. Kessler.  On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circulations , 1969 .

[3]  J. Deardorff,et al.  Subgrid-Scale Condensation in Models of Nonprecipitating Clouds , 1977 .

[4]  George L. Mellor,et al.  The Gaussian Cloud Model Relations , 1977 .

[5]  J. Klemp,et al.  The Simulation of Three-Dimensional Convective Storm Dynamics , 1978 .

[6]  J. Deardorff.  Stratocumulus-capped mixed layers derived from a three-dimensional model , 1980 .

[7]  Mary L. Boas.  Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences: 2nd Ed , 1983 .

[8]  L. Devroye.  Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation , 1986 .

[9]  Pierre L'Ecuyer,et al.  Efficient and portable combined random number generators , 1988, CACM.

[10]  M. E. Johnson,et al.  Multivariate Statistical Simulation , 1988 .

[11]  F. A. Seiler,et al.  Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[12]  A. Bott.  A positive definite advection scheme obtained by nonlinear renormalization of the advective fluxes , 1989 .

[13]  W. Cotton,et al.  Storm and Cloud Dynamics , 1992 .

[14]  W. S. Lewellen,et al.  Binormal Model of Ensemble Partial Cloudiness , 1993 .

[15]  M. Tiedtke,et al.  Representation of Clouds in Large-Scale Models , 1993 .

[16]  G. Grell,et al.  A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5) , 1994 .

[17]  C. Bretherton,et al.  An intercomparison of radiatively driven entrainment and turbulence in a smoke cloud, as simulated by different numerical models , 1996 .

[18]  R. Hodur.  The Naval Research Laboratory’s Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS) , 1997 .

[19]  A. Owen.  Monte Carlo Variance of Scrambled Net Quadrature , 1997 .

[20]  J. Gentle.  Random number generation and Monte Carlo methods , 1998 .

[21]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[22]  S. Klein,et al.  Unresolved spatial variability and microphysical process rates in large‐scale models , 2000 .

[23]  Craig B. Borkowf,et al.  Random Number Generation and Monte Carlo Methods , 2000, Technometrics.

[24]  Leon D. Rotstayn,et al.  On the “tuning” of autoconversion parameterizations in climate models , 2000 .

[25]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[26]  Vincent E. Larson,et al.  Systematic Biases in the Microphysics and Thermodynamics of Numerical Models That Ignore Subgrid-Scale Variability , 2001 .

[27]  K.,et al.  Simulations of Trade Wind Cumuli under a Strong Inversion , 2001 .

[28]  W. Cotton,et al.  Small-Scale and Mesoscale Variability in Cloudy Boundary Layers: Joint Probability Density Functions , 2002 .

[29]  Jean-Christophe Golaz,et al.  Large‐eddy simulation of the diurnal cycle of shallow cumulus convection over land , 2002 .

[30]  Vincent E. Larson,et al.  A PDF-Based Model for Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Method and Model Description , 2002 .

[31]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  A Large Eddy Simulation Intercomparison Study of Shallow Cumulus Convection , 2003 .

[32]  J. Morcrette,et al.  A fast, flexible, approximate technique for computing radiative transfer in inhomogeneous cloud fields , 2003 .

[33]  W. Cotton,et al.  RAMS 2001: Current status and future directions , 2003 .

[34]  V. Larson.  Prognostic Equations for Cloud Fraction and Liquid Water, and Their Relation to Filtered Density Functions , 2004 .

[35]  D. Randall,et al.  Stochastic generation of subgrid‐scale cloudy columns for large‐scale models , 2004 .

[36]  Howard W. Barker,et al.  Evaluation and optimization of sampling errors for the Monte Carlo Independent Column Approximation , 2004 .

[37]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Evaluation of Large-Eddy Simulations via Observations of Nocturnal Marine Stratocumulus , 2005 .

[38]  J. Golaz,et al.  Coamps®-Les: Model Evaluation and Analysis of Second-and Third-Moment Vertical Velocity Budgets , 2005 .

[39]  V. Larson,et al.  Using Probability Density Functions to Derive Consistent Closure Relationships among Higher-Order Moments , 2005 .