Comparison of uncertainty quantification methods for cloud simulation

被引:0
|
作者
Janjic, T. [1 ]
Lukacova-Medvidova, M. [2 ]
Ruckstuhl, Y. [1 ]
Wiebe, B. [2 ]
机构
[1] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Meteorol Inst, Munich, Germany
[2] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Math, Mainz, Germany
关键词
convective scale; data assimilation; ensembles; forecasting (methods); stochastic Galerkin; uncertainty quantification; FINITE-VOLUME METHODS; CONSERVATION-LAWS; POLYNOMIAL CHAOS; ENSEMBLE; COLLOCATION; EQUATIONS; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1002/qj.4537
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Quantification of evolving uncertainties is required for both probabilistic forecasting and data assimilation in weather prediction. In current practice, the ensemble of model simulations is often used as a primary tool to describe the required uncertainties. In this work, we explore an alternative approach, the so-called stochastic Galerkin (SG) method, which integrates uncertainties forward in time using a spectral approximation in stochastic space. In an idealized two-dimensional model that couples nonhydrostatic weakly compressible Navier-Stokes equations to cloud variables, we first investigate the propagation of initial uncertainty. Propagation of initial perturbations is followed through time for all model variables during two types of forecast: the ensemble forecast and the SG forecast. Series of experiments indicate that differences in performance of the two methods depend on the system state and truncations used. For example, in more stable conditions, the SG method outperforms the ensemble of simulations for every truncation and every variable. However, in unstable conditions, the ensemble of simulations would need more than 100 members (depending on the model variable) and the SG method more than a truncation at five to produce comparable but not identical results. As estimates of the uncertainty are crucial for data assimilation, secondly we instigate the use of these two methods with the stochastic ensemble Kalman filter. The use of the SG method avoids evolution of a large ensemble, which is usually the most expensive component of the data assimilation system, and provides results comparable with the ensemble Kalman filter in the cases investigated. Quantification of evolving uncertainties is required for both probabilistic forecasting and data assimilation in weather prediction. In current practice, the ensemble of model simulations (MC) is often used as a primary tool to describe the required uncertainties. In this work, we explore an alternative approach, the so-called stochastic Galerkin (SG) method, for both ensemble forecasting and data assimilation. Series of experiments indicate that differences in performance of the two methods depend on the system state and truncations used.image
引用
收藏
页码:2895 / 2910
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Methods for the Uncertainty Quantification of Aircraft Simulation Models
    Rosic, Bojana V.
    Diekmann, Jobst H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT, 2015, 52 (04): : 1247 - 1255
  • [2] Uncertainty Quantification of Leakages in a Multistage Simulation and Comparison With Experiments
    Mazzoni, Cosimo Maria
    Ahlfeld, Richard
    Rosic, Budimir
    Montomoli, Francesco
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2018, 140 (02):
  • [3] Uncertainty Quantification for Aircraft Noise Emission Simulation: Methods and Limitations
    Roemer, Ulrich
    Bertsch, Lothar
    Mulani, Sameer B.
    Schaffer, Beat
    [J]. AIAA JOURNAL, 2022, 60 (05) : 3020 - 3034
  • [4] COMPARISON OF UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION METHODS FOR CNN-BASED REGRESSION
    Wursthorn, K.
    Hillemann, M.
    Ulrich, M.
    [J]. XXIV ISPRS CONGRESS IMAGING TODAY, FORESEEING TOMORROW, COMMISSION II, 2022, 43-B2 : 721 - 728
  • [5] Comparison of inverse uncertainty quantification methods for critical flow test
    Domitr, Pawel
    Wlostoski, Mateusz
    Laskowski, Rafal
    Jurkowski, Romuald
    [J]. ENERGY, 2023, 263
  • [6] A Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Active Learning in Image Classification
    Hein, Alice
    Roehrl, Stefan
    Grobel, Thea
    Lengl, Manuel
    Hafez, Nawal
    Knopp, Martin
    Klenk, Christian
    Heim, Dominik
    Hayden, Oliver
    Diepold, Klaus
    [J]. 2022 INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS (IJCNN), 2022,
  • [7] Uncertainty quantification in simulation science
    Karniadakis, George Em
    Glimm, James
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS, 2006, 217 (01) : 1 - 4
  • [8] METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION AND COMPARISON OF WELD RESIDUAL STRESS MEASUREMENTS AND PREDICTIONS
    Lewis, John R.
    Brooks, Dusty
    Benson, Michael L.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME PRESSURE VESSELS AND PIPING CONFERENCE, 2017, VOL 6B, 2017,
  • [9] Comparison of stochastic and interval methods for uncertainty quantification of metal forming processes
    Arnst, Maarten
    Ponthot, Jean-Philippe
    Boman, Romain
    [J]. COMPTES RENDUS MECANIQUE, 2018, 346 (08): : 634 - 646
  • [10] NUMERICAL METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION
    Chernov, Alexey
    Nobile, Fabio
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION, 2015, 5 (03) : VII - VIII