Abstract
Here, a nonhydrostatic alternative scheme (NAS) is proposed for the grey zone where the nonhydrostatic impact on the atmosphere is evident but not large enough to justify the necessity to include an implicit nonhydrostatic solver in an atmospheric dynamical core. The NAS is designed to replace this solver, which can be incorporated into any hydrostatic models so that existing well-developed hydrostatic models can effectively serve for a longer time. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) provide a potential tool for capturing the main complicated nonlinear-nonhydrostatic relationship. In this study, an ML approach called a neural network (NN) was adopted to select leading input features and develop the NAS. The NNs were trained and evaluated with 12-day simulation results of dry baroclinic-wave tests by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The forward time difference of the nonhydrostatic tendency was used as the target variable, and the five selected features were the nonhydrostatic tendency at the last time step, and four hydrostatic variables at the current step including geopotential height, pressure in two different forms, and potential temperature, respectively. Finally, a practical NAS was developed with these features and trained layer by layer at a 20-km horizontal resolution, which can accurately reproduce the temporal variation and vertical distribution of the nonhydrostatic tendency. Corrected by the NN-based NAS, the improved hydrostatic solver at different horizontal resolutions can run stably for at least one month and effectively reduce most of the nonhydrostatic errors in terms of system bias, anomaly root-mean-square error, and the error of the wave spatial pattern, which proves the feasibility and superiority of this scheme.
摘要
大气非静力效应随水平分辨率的提高不断增强, 当分辨率上升到一定临界范围即“灰色地带”时, 其对大气模式动力框架有明显影响, 但仍不足以证明必须在框架中包含非静力隐式求解器. 本文针对上述问题, 旨在发展一套非静力替代求解方案(NAS)来取代传统的非静力隐式积分求解, 使得非静力求解过程成为一个可以自由融入任意静力模式的模块, 从而延长已有成熟的静力模式的使用寿命. 近年来机器学习相关的研究表明该方法具有强大的非线性模拟能力, 十分适合应用于非静力替代求解方案的开发. 本文基于WRF大气模式非静力框架的干斜压波理想试验, 选取了一种经典的机器学习算法——全连接神经网络算法来挑选最优输入特征以及构建求解方案. 该算法的目标变量为非静力倾向在相邻两个时刻的向前差, 挑选的最优输入特征分别为上一时步的非静力倾向, 以及当前时步静力框架的位势高度、 气压的不同差分形式和位温. 基于以上特征构建的非静力求解方案能够有效模拟出非静力倾向项的时空分布特征. 将该方案耦合至WRF模式静力框架后, 模式积分稳定, 实现了对非静力过程的一个月长期稳定模拟. 针对不同分辨率试验, 该方案从系统偏差、 距平均方根误差以及斜压波空间模态误差三个方面均能够有效降低模式的非静力误差, 证明了该方案在不同分辨率下的可行性和优越性.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bao, L., R. Klöfkorn, and R. D. Nair, 2015: Horizontally explicit and vertically implicit (HEVI) time discretization scheme for a discontinuous Galerkin Nonhydrostatic Model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 972–990, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00083.1.
Beucler, T., M. Pritchard, P. Gentine, and S. Rasp, 2020: Towards physically-consistent, data-driven models of convection. Preprints, IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, IEEE, 3987–3990, https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS39084.2020.9324569.
Blázquez, J., N. L. Pessacg, and P. L. M. Gonzalez, 2013: Simulation of a baroclinic wave with the WRF regional model: Sensitivity to the initial conditions in an ideal and a real experiment. Meteorological Applications, 20, 447–456, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1307.
Bolton, T., and L. Zanna, 2019: Applications of deep learning to ocean data inference and subgrid parameterization. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11, 376–399, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001472.
Breiman, L., 2001: Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
Brenowitz, N. D., and C. S. Bretherton, 2018: Prognostic validation of a neural network unified physics parameterization. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 6289–6298, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078510.
Chevallier, F., J. J. Morcrette, F. Chéruy, and N. A. Scott, 2000: Use of a neural-network-based long-wave radiative-transfer scheme in the ECMWF atmospheric model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 761–776, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656318.
Chollet, F., 2015: Keras. Accessed 30 August 2023, https://keras.io.
Davies, T., M. J. P. Cullen, A. J. Malcolm, M. H. Mawson, A. Staniforth, A. A. White, and N. Wood, 2005: A new dynamical core for the Met Office’s global and regional modelling of the atmosphere. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 1759–1782, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.101.
Dowling, T. E., and Coauthors, 2006: The EPIC atmospheric model with an isentropic/terrain-following hybrid vertical coordinate. Icarus, 182, 259–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2006.01.003.
Dwivedi, V., N. Parashar, and B. Srinivasan, 2019: Distributed physics informed neural network for data-efficient solution to partial differential equations. arXiv:1907.08967, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.08967.
Gentine, P., M. Pritchard, S. Rasp, G. Reinaudi, and G. Yacalis, 2018: Could machine learning break the convection para meterization deadlock?. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 5742–5751, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078202.
Gettelman, A., D. J. Gagne, C. C. Chen, M. W. Christensen, Z. J. Lebo, H. Morrison, and G. Gantos, 2021: Machine learning the warm rain process. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 13, e2020MS002268, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002268.
Han, Y. L., G. J. Zhang, X. M. Huang, and Y. Wang, 2020: A moist physics parameterization based on deep learning. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12, e2020MS002076, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002076.
Jablonowski, C., and D. L. Williamson, 2006: A baroclinic instability test case for atmospheric model dynamical cores. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 2943–2975, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.06.12.
Jin, X. W., S. Z. Cai, H. Li, and G. E. Karniadakis, 2021: NSFnets (Navier-Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys., 426, 109951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109951.
Kasahara, A., 1974: Various vertical coordinate systems used for numerical weather prediction. Mon. Wea. Rev., 102, 509–522, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1974)102<0509:VVCSUF>2.0.CO;2.
Klemp, J. B., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1978: The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1070–1096, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035<1070:tsotdc>2.0.co;2.
Krasnopolsky, V. M., M. S. Fox-Rabinovitz, and D. V. Chalikov, 2005: New approach to calculation of atmospheric model physics: Accurate and fast neural network emulation of long-wave radiation in a climate model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 1370–1383, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2923.1.
Laprise, R., 1992: The Euler equations of motion with hydrostatic pressure as an independent variable. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 197–207, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120<0197:teeomw>2.0.CO;2.
Lauritzen, P. H., R. D. Nair, and P. A. Ullrich, 2010: A conservative semi-Lagrangian multi-tracer transport scheme (CSLAM) on the cubed-sphere grid. J. Comput. Phys., 229, 1401–1424, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.10.036.
Li, H. C., C. Yu, J. J. Xia, Y. C. Wang, J. Zhu, and P. W. Zhang, 2019: A model output machine learning method for grid temperature forecasts in the Beijing Area. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36, 1156–1170, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-9023-z.
Lin, S. J., 2004: A “vertically Lagrangian” finite-volume dynamical core for global models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 2293–2307, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<2293:AVLFDC>2.0.CO;2.
Liu, C., S. Yang, D. Di, Y. J. Yang, C. Zhou, X. Q. Hu, and B. J. Sohn, 2022: A machine learning-based cloud detection algorithm for the Himawari-8 spectral image. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1994–2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-0366-x.
Mengaldo, G., A. Wyszogrodzki, M. Diamantakis, S. J. Lock, F. X. Giraldo, and N. P. Wedi, 2019: Current and emerging time-integration strategies in global numerical weather and climate prediction. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 26, 663–684, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-018-9261-8.
Raissi, M., and G. E. Karniadakis, 2018: Hidden physics models: Machine learning of nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys., 357, 125–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.11.039.
Raissi, M., P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, 2019: Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys., 378, 686–707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045.
Ranade, R., C. Hill, and J. Pathak, 2021: DiscretizationNet: A machine-learning based solver for Navier-Stokes equations using finite volume discretization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 378, 113722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.113722.
Rasp, S., M. S. Pritchard, and P. Gentine, 2018: Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 9684–9689, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810286115.
Robert, A., 1981: A stable numerical integration scheme for the primitive meteorological equations. Atmosphere-Ocean, 19, 35–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.1981.9649098.
Rumelhart, D. E., G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, 1986: Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536, https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0.
Skamarock, W. C., and J. B. Klemp, 2008: A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J. Comput. Phys., 227, 3465–3485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037.
Skamarock, W. C., J. B. Klemp, M. G. Duda, L. D. Fowler, S. H. Park, and T. D. Ringler, 2012: A multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric model using centroidal Voronoi tesselations and C-grid staggering. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 3090–3105, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00215.1.
Smolarkiewicz, P. K., L. G. Margolin, and A. A. Wyszogrodzki, 2001: A class of nonhydrostatic global models. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 349–364, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<0349:ACONGM>2.0.CO;2.
Staniforth, A., and N. Wood, 2008: Aspects of the dynamical core of a nonhydrostatic, deep-atmosphere, unified weather and climate-prediction model. J. Comput. Phys., 227, 3445–3464, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.11.009.
Sutcliffe, R. C., 1947: A contribution to the problem of development. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 73, 370–383, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49707331710.
Tomita, H., and M. Satoh, 2004: A new dynamical framework of nonhydrostatic global model using the icosahedral grid. Fluid Dynamics Research, 34, 357–400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluiddyn.2004.03.003.
Toy, M. D., and D. A. Randall, 2009: Design of a nonhydrostatic atmospheric model based on a generalized vertical coordinate. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 2305–2330, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2834.1.
Wang, B., W. Hui, Z. Z. Ji, X. Zhang, R. C. Yu, Y. Q. Yu, and H. T. Liu, 2004: Design of a new dynamical core for global atmospheric models based on some efficient numerical methods. Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 47, 4–21, https://doi.org/10.1360/04za0001.
Wedi, N. P., and P. K. Smolarkiewicz, 2009: A framework for testing global non-hydrostatic models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135, 469–484, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.377.
Wood, N., and Coauthors, 2014: An inherently mass-conserving semi-implicitsemi-Lagrangian discretization of the deep-atmosphere global non-hydrostatic equations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 1505–1520, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2235.
Zängl, G., D. Reinert, P. Rípodas, and M. Baldauf, 2015: The ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI-M: Description of the non-hydrostatic dynamical core. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 563–579, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378.
Zerroukat, M., N. Wood, and A. Staniforth, 2002: SLICE: A Semi-Lagrangian Inherently Conserving and Efficient scheme for transport problems. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 128, 2801–2820, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.02.69.
Zhang, F. B., B. Wang, and L. J. Li, 2017: New approach to incorporating the impacts of non-hydrostatic perturbations in atmospheric models. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 10, 379–384, https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2017.1348191.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42230606). We acknowledge that the neural network codes used here are from Python Library Keras (Chollet, 2015). The training and testing data, associated codes, and application in the WRF are provided at Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6355086). We also acknowledge Dr. Yilun HAN and Dr. Yan ZHANG for the useful discussion about machine learning and improvement in computational efficiency, respectively.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Article Highlights
• The concept of “nonhydrostatic alternative” is raised here to avoid complicated implicit nonhydrostatic integration.
• A layer-wise neural network algorithm with five selected leading input features is proposed to develop a nonhydrostatic alternative scheme.
• The scheme performs well in reproducing the nonhydrostatic tendency and correcting nonhydrostatic errors in the hydrostatic version of the WRF.
Electronic Supplementary Material to
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xia, Y., Wang, B., Li, L. et al. A Neural-network-based Alternative Scheme to Include Nonhydrostatic Processes in an Atmospheric Dynamical Core. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 41, 1083–1099 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-3119-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-3119-1