The Numerics of Physical Parametrization in the ECMWF Model

The numerical aspects of physical parametrization are discussed mainly in the context of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System. Two time integration techniques are discussed. With parallel splitting the tendencies of all the parametrized processes are computed independently of each other. With sequential splitting, tendencies of the explicit processes are computed first and are used as input to the subsequent implicit fast process. It is argued that sequential splitting is better than parallel splitting for problems with multiple time scales, because a balance between processes is obtained during the time integration. It is shown that sequential splitting applied to boundary layer diffusion in the ECMWF model leads to much smaller time truncation errors than does parallel splitting. The so called Semi-Lagrangian Averaging of Physical Parametrizations (SLAVEPP), as implemented in the ECMWF model, is explained. The scheme reduces time truncation errors compared to standard first order methods, although a few implementation questions remain. In the scheme fast and slow processes are handled differently and it remains a research topic to find the optimal way of handling convection and clouds. Process specific numerical issues are discussed in the context of the ECMWF parametrization package. Examples are the non-linear stability problems in the vertical diffusion scheme, the stability related mass flux limit in the convection scheme and the fast processes in the cloud microphysics. Vertical resolution in the land surface scheme is inspired by the requirement to represent diurnal to annual time scales. Finally, a new coupling strategy between atmospheric models and land surface schemes is discussed. It allows for fully implicit coupling also for tiled land surface schemes.

[1]  Kelly Elder,et al.  An Improved Snow Scheme for the ECMWF Land Surface Model: Description and Offline Validation , 2010 .

[2]  Pierre Bénard,et al.  Dynamical kernel of the Aladin–NH spectral limited‐area model: Revised formulation and sensitivity experiments , 2010 .

[3]  A. Lock The Numerical Representation of Entrainment in Parameterizations of Boundary Layer Turbulent Mixing , 2001 .

[4]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Time-Split versus Process-Split Coupling of Parameterizations and Dynamical Core , 2002 .

[5]  René Laprise,et al.  Consequences of Using the Splitting Method for Implementing Physical Forcings in a Semi-Implicit Semi-Lagrangian Model , 1998 .

[6]  Two-Time-Step Oscillations in Numerical Weather Prediction Models , 1997 .

[7]  George Mozdzynski,et al.  A Reduced Radiation Grid for the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System , 2008 .

[8]  Jan Polcher,et al.  A Proposed Structure for Coupling Tiled Surfaces with the Planetary Boundary Layer , 2004 .

[9]  Inna,et al.  Radiation in numerical weather prediction , 2017 .

[10]  L. Margolin,et al.  On balanced approximations for time integration of multiple time scale systems , 2003 .

[11]  Claude Girard,et al.  Stable Schemes for Nonlinear Vertical Diffusion in Atmospheric Circulation Models , 1990 .

[12]  Robin J. Hogan,et al.  Mitigating errors in surface temperature forecasts using approximate radiation updates , 2015 .

[13]  Eugenia Kalnay,et al.  Time Schemes for Strongly Nonlinear Damping Equations , 1988 .

[14]  Blackwell Munksgaard Running GCM physics and dynamics on different grids: algorithm and tests , 2009 .

[15]  Adrian M. Tompkins,et al.  649 A new prognostic bulk microphysics scheme for the IFS , 2012 .

[16]  Jean-Claude Thelen,et al.  Two fast radiative transfer methods to improve the temporal sampling of clouds in numerical weather prediction and climate models , 2009 .

[17]  Louis J. Wicker,et al.  A Time-Splitting Scheme for the Elastic Equations Incorporating Second-Order Runge–Kutta Time Differencing , 1998 .

[18]  M. J. P. Cullen,et al.  On the use of a predictor–corrector scheme to couple the dynamics with the physical parametrizations in the ECMWF model , 2003 .

[19]  D. Williamson The effect of time steps and time‐scales on parametrization suites , 2013 .

[20]  D. Keyes,et al.  Jacobian-free Newton-Krylov methods: a survey of approaches and applications , 2004 .

[21]  Florian Lemarié,et al.  On the numerical stability of surface–atmosphere coupling in weather and climate models , 2016 .

[22]  A. Holtslag,et al.  Evaluation of the Kinetic Energy Approach for Modeling Turbulent Fluxes in Stratocumulus , 2000 .

[23]  Hui Wan,et al.  Short‐term time step convergence in a climate model , 2015, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[24]  Piet Termonia,et al.  Stability and accuracy of the physics—dynamics coupling in spectral models , 2007 .

[25]  J. Shadid,et al.  Studies of the Accuracy of Time Integration Methods for Reaction-Diffusion Equations ∗ , 2005 .

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

[27]  B. Sportisse An Analysis of Operator Splitting Techniques in the Stiff Case , 2000 .

[28]  N. Wood,et al.  Bridging the (Knowledge) Gap between Physics and Dynamics , 2016 .

[29]  G. L. Browning,et al.  Splitting Methods for Problems with Different Timescales , 1994 .

[30]  Nigel Wood,et al.  Some numerical properties of approaches to physics–dynamics coupling for NWP , 2006 .

[31]  J. Shadid,et al.  Studies on the accuracy of time-integration methods for the radiation-diffusion equations , 2004 .

[32]  Nigel Wood,et al.  Analysis of Parallel versus Sequential Splittings for Time-Stepping Physical Parameterizations , 2004 .

[33]  Christopher S. Bretherton,et al.  A Moist PBL Parameterization for Large-Scale Models and Its Application to Subtropical Cloud-Topped Marine Boundary Layers , 2001 .

[34]  M. Tiedtke A Comprehensive Mass Flux Scheme for Cumulus Parameterization in Large-Scale Models , 1989 .

[35]  S. Mishra,et al.  Effects of time step size on the simulation of tropical climate in NCAR-CAM3 , 2011 .

[36]  Akio Arakawa,et al.  The parameterization of the planetary boundary layer in the UCLA general circulation model - Formulation and results , 1983 .

[37]  Martin Köhler,et al.  Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with the ECMWF model: From synoptic to decadal time‐scales , 2008 .

[38]  François Lott,et al.  A new subgrid‐scale orographic drag parametrization: Its formulation and testing , 1997 .

[39]  A. Holtslag,et al.  Single-Column Model Intercomparison for a Stably Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layer , 2004 .

[40]  Nigel Wood,et al.  Analysis of the numerics of physics–dynamics coupling , 2002 .

[41]  Nigel Wood,et al.  A monotonically‐damping second‐order‐accurate unconditionally‐stable numerical scheme for diffusion , 2007 .