Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · physics/0411201

Rain initiation time in turbulent warm clouds

G. Falkovich·M. G. Stepanov·M. Vucelja
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present a mean-field model that describes droplet growth due to condensation and collisions and droplet loss due to fallout. The model allows for an effective numerical simulation. We study how the rain initiation time depends on different parameters. We also present a simple model that allows one to estimate the rain initiation time for turbulent clouds with an inhomogeneous concentration of cloud condensation nuclei. In particular, we show that over-seeding even a part of a cloud by small hygroscopic nuclei one can substantially delay the onset of precipitation.

Explore related subjects

physics.ao-phnlin.CDphysics.geo-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. Falkovich, M. G. Stepanov, M. Vucelja. 2004-11-22. Rain initiation time in turbulent warm clouds. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411201

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Distinguishing Initial-Condition and Model Error Using Machine-Learning Weather Models

Differentiable weather models allow atmospheric initial conditions to be directly optimized to shadow a known trajectory, which we take from a reanalysis dataset. Here, we extend this optimization to include the forecast model, GraphCast, using low-rank adaptation (LoRA). We compare model optimization with initial-condition (IC) optimization, and then joint optimization, where both are tuned simultaneously. When compared against a control forecast initialized with reanalysis data, LoRA and IC optimization individually produce similar improvements. We find similar results when IC and LoRA are jointly optimized across a spectrum of solutions where a tuning coefficient smoothly shifts the weight of the joint optimization from all-LoRA to all-IC; forecast improvement is not unique to the relative contributions of model and IC corrections. To better discriminate the source of error, we introduce a second model, Pangu-Weather, as a supervisor that gates IC updates during joint optimization. This gated optimization is the same as before, except that IC updates at each epoch are accepted only when they improve the forecasts of both models; otherwise, only the LoRA update is accepted. Results show that this cross-model constraint substantially improves agreement between the two models in their response to the same optimized ICs, narrowing the gap in mean forecast error reduction from 64% to 10%. Moreover, when used together, the LoRA and IC corrections from the gated optimization yield GraphCast forecast improvements similar to those from the ungated optimization. These results imply that model error that is encoded in the ungated ICs is shifted to the LoRA corrections via gating, yielding IC corrections that may provide better analysis estimates.

physics.ao-ph↗
arXiv2026

Estimating ensemble-mean anomaly correlations and the ratio of predictable components using an unbiased estimate of the predictable signal variance

The correlation ($r$) between ensemble mean forecasts and observations is a frequently-used metric of forecast quality in the weather and climate prediction communities. However, uncorrected estimates of $r$ are biased towards zero at finite ensemble size due to the influence of unpredictable noise that contaminates the sample ensemble mean. This note summarises established ensemble-size adjustment methods and characterises the behaviour of $r_{\infty}$, a correlation estimator that is constructed from an unbiased and ensemble-size-independent estimate of the signal variance. The only requirement is that forecast members are exchangeable with one another such that they can be interpreted as independent draws from a case-specific predictive distribution. The estimator $r_{\infty}$ does not require forecasts and observations to be statistically exchangeable, only that the unpredictable component of each member is uncorrelated with the observed truth, and thus works for both reliable and unreliable forecasts. In some situations, $r_{\infty}$ may be undefined (i.e. the estimated signal variance is negative) or fall outside the admissible range $-1 \leq r_{\infty} \leq 1$ when the predictable signal is small relative to the sampling uncertainty. These inadmissible values can be interpreted as evidence that the true predictable signal cannot be resolved with the available ensemble size and number of cases. The same unbiased signal variance can also be used to estimate the correlation between the predictable signal and individual members to yield an ensemble-size-invariant estimator of the ratio of predictable components (RPC). In contrast, variance-based RPC estimates, including forms that correct only the model predictable component, are biased low by a factor that depends only on the ensemble size and model signal-to-noise ratio.

physics.ao-ph↗
arXiv2026

Comparing the dynamics of idealized squall lines between NWP and LES models

Mesoscale convective systems, such as squall lines, produce large amounts of rainfall but remain challenging to forecast. We intercompare two atmospheric models, namely ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) and MicroHH, to investigate how a simulated squall line depends on the model formulation. ICON is a Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model, which traditionally aims for accurate weather forecasts, whereas MicroHH is typically used to study physical processes with Large-Eddy Simulations (LES). These different purposes resulted in different designs, mainly because ICON solves the compressible equations on a triangular grid, while MicroHH solves the anelastic equations on a regular grid. With increasing computer power, the applications of these models converge, raising the question of whether the model results also converge. We investigated an idealized squall line with the same case setup in both models, including grid spacing, domain size, boundary conditions, and microphysics scheme. The models simulate the same squall-line structure and circulation pattern. Furthermore, the mean vertical wind and upward mass and humidity fluxes differ less than 5% averaged over the cloud layer at 500 m grid spacing. In contrast, ICON produces less surface precipitation than MicroHH and has higher maximum vertical velocities across grid spacings. At 500 m grid spacing, inter model differences are controlled by the advection scheme and the formulation of moist thermodynamics while differences in the turbulent formulation are less relevant. The quantitative differences between the models across grid spacings highlight that the details of model physics and numerics are at least as important as the grid spacing.

physics.ao-ph↗