Loading…

Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II: Numerical Bounding

Past microphysical investigations, including Part I of this study, have noted that the collection equation, when applied to the interaction between different hydrometeor species, can predict large mass transfer rates, even when an exact solution is used. The fractional depletion in a time step can e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied meteorology (1988) 2007-01, Vol.46 (1), p.82-96
Main Authors: Gaudet, Brian J., Schmidt, Jerome M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593
container_end_page 96
container_issue 1
container_start_page 82
container_title Journal of applied meteorology (1988)
container_volume 46
creator Gaudet, Brian J.
Schmidt, Jerome M.
description Past microphysical investigations, including Part I of this study, have noted that the collection equation, when applied to the interaction between different hydrometeor species, can predict large mass transfer rates, even when an exact solution is used. The fractional depletion in a time step can even exceed unity for the collected species with plausible microphysical conditions and time steps, requiring “normalization” by a microphysical scheme. Although some of this problem can be alleviated through the use of more moment predictions and hydrometeor categories, the question as to why such “overdepletion” can be predicted in the first place remains insufficiently addressed. It is shown through both physical and conceptual arguments that the explicit time discretization of the bulk collection equation for any moment is not consistent with a quasi-stochastic view of collection. The result, under certain reasonable conditions, is a systematic overprediction of collection, which can become a serious error in the prediction of higher-order moments in a bulk scheme. The term numerical bounding is used to refer to the use of a quasi-stochastically consistent formula that prevents fractional collections exceeding unity for any moments. Through examples and analysis it is found that numerical bounding is typically important in mass moment prediction for time steps exceeding approximately 10 s. The Poisson-based numerical bounding scheme is shown to be simple in application and conceptualization; within a straightforward idealization it completely corrects overdepletion while even being immune to the rediagnosis error of the time-splitting method. The scheme’s range of applicability and utility are discussed.
doi_str_mv 10.1175/JAM2442.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_224366870</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26171883</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26171883</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LAzEQhoMoqNWDP0AIgoKH1nxussdSqlYURRS8LenuBFq2m5pJof57Iy0VvAgDM_A-803IGWcDzo2-eRg-CaXEgO-RI6617Vslxf4uFuqQHCPOGVPKGH1EPoaIgLiALtHg6f1XE8MCEoRIR6FtoU6z0NFXlwCpzxIdr12dqOsaOlwuY1jPFlmj48-V-yFxQF9cTHQyOSEH3rUIp1vfI--347fRff_x-W4yGj72a8V06tvpFErFTCFAKKs146porHRl2Uyd98ZqCZxxyVQBpjTcNL7RPudADdroUvbI1aZuHuZzBZiqxQxraFvXQVhhJZUWpbX2X1CwQkuZrUcu_oDzsIpdXqISQsmisIZl6HoD1TEgRvDVMuZTxK-Ks-rnE9X2ExXP7OW2oMPatT66rp7hb4JVhoncuUfON9wcU4g7XRTc8LyA_Aac6JAV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>224366870</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II: Numerical Bounding</title><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Gaudet, Brian J. ; Schmidt, Jerome M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gaudet, Brian J. ; Schmidt, Jerome M.</creatorcontrib><description>Past microphysical investigations, including Part I of this study, have noted that the collection equation, when applied to the interaction between different hydrometeor species, can predict large mass transfer rates, even when an exact solution is used. The fractional depletion in a time step can even exceed unity for the collected species with plausible microphysical conditions and time steps, requiring “normalization” by a microphysical scheme. Although some of this problem can be alleviated through the use of more moment predictions and hydrometeor categories, the question as to why such “overdepletion” can be predicted in the first place remains insufficiently addressed. It is shown through both physical and conceptual arguments that the explicit time discretization of the bulk collection equation for any moment is not consistent with a quasi-stochastic view of collection. The result, under certain reasonable conditions, is a systematic overprediction of collection, which can become a serious error in the prediction of higher-order moments in a bulk scheme. The term numerical bounding is used to refer to the use of a quasi-stochastically consistent formula that prevents fractional collections exceeding unity for any moments. Through examples and analysis it is found that numerical bounding is typically important in mass moment prediction for time steps exceeding approximately 10 s. The Poisson-based numerical bounding scheme is shown to be simple in application and conceptualization; within a straightforward idealization it completely corrects overdepletion while even being immune to the rediagnosis error of the time-splitting method. The scheme’s range of applicability and utility are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1558-8424</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0894-8763</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-8432</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-0450</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1175/JAM2442.1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JOAMEZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society</publisher><subject>Cloud physics ; Earth, ocean, space ; Exact sciences and technology ; External geophysics ; Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models ; Graupel ; Hydrometeorology ; Liquids ; Mass ; Mass transfer ; Mathematical moments ; Meteorology ; Microphysics ; Moisture content ; Rain ; Ratings &amp; rankings ; Snow ; Stochastic models ; Studies ; Water in the atmosphere (humidity, clouds, evaporation, precipitation)</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied meteorology (1988), 2007-01, Vol.46 (1), p.82-96</ispartof><rights>2007 American Meteorological Society</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Meteorological Society Jan 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26171883$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26171883$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,58236,58469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18470235$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gaudet, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Jerome M.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II: Numerical Bounding</title><title>Journal of applied meteorology (1988)</title><description>Past microphysical investigations, including Part I of this study, have noted that the collection equation, when applied to the interaction between different hydrometeor species, can predict large mass transfer rates, even when an exact solution is used. The fractional depletion in a time step can even exceed unity for the collected species with plausible microphysical conditions and time steps, requiring “normalization” by a microphysical scheme. Although some of this problem can be alleviated through the use of more moment predictions and hydrometeor categories, the question as to why such “overdepletion” can be predicted in the first place remains insufficiently addressed. It is shown through both physical and conceptual arguments that the explicit time discretization of the bulk collection equation for any moment is not consistent with a quasi-stochastic view of collection. The result, under certain reasonable conditions, is a systematic overprediction of collection, which can become a serious error in the prediction of higher-order moments in a bulk scheme. The term numerical bounding is used to refer to the use of a quasi-stochastically consistent formula that prevents fractional collections exceeding unity for any moments. Through examples and analysis it is found that numerical bounding is typically important in mass moment prediction for time steps exceeding approximately 10 s. The Poisson-based numerical bounding scheme is shown to be simple in application and conceptualization; within a straightforward idealization it completely corrects overdepletion while even being immune to the rediagnosis error of the time-splitting method. The scheme’s range of applicability and utility are discussed.</description><subject>Cloud physics</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>External geophysics</subject><subject>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</subject><subject>Graupel</subject><subject>Hydrometeorology</subject><subject>Liquids</subject><subject>Mass</subject><subject>Mass transfer</subject><subject>Mathematical moments</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>Microphysics</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><subject>Snow</subject><subject>Stochastic models</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Water in the atmosphere (humidity, clouds, evaporation, precipitation)</subject><issn>1558-8424</issn><issn>0894-8763</issn><issn>1558-8432</issn><issn>1520-0450</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU1LAzEQhoMoqNWDP0AIgoKH1nxussdSqlYURRS8LenuBFq2m5pJof57Iy0VvAgDM_A-803IGWcDzo2-eRg-CaXEgO-RI6617Vslxf4uFuqQHCPOGVPKGH1EPoaIgLiALtHg6f1XE8MCEoRIR6FtoU6z0NFXlwCpzxIdr12dqOsaOlwuY1jPFlmj48-V-yFxQF9cTHQyOSEH3rUIp1vfI--347fRff_x-W4yGj72a8V06tvpFErFTCFAKKs146porHRl2Uyd98ZqCZxxyVQBpjTcNL7RPudADdroUvbI1aZuHuZzBZiqxQxraFvXQVhhJZUWpbX2X1CwQkuZrUcu_oDzsIpdXqISQsmisIZl6HoD1TEgRvDVMuZTxK-Ks-rnE9X2ExXP7OW2oMPatT66rp7hb4JVhoncuUfON9wcU4g7XRTc8LyA_Aac6JAV</recordid><startdate>200701</startdate><enddate>200701</enddate><creator>Gaudet, Brian J.</creator><creator>Schmidt, Jerome M.</creator><general>American Meteorological Society</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200701</creationdate><title>Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II</title><author>Gaudet, Brian J. ; Schmidt, Jerome M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Cloud physics</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>External geophysics</topic><topic>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</topic><topic>Graupel</topic><topic>Hydrometeorology</topic><topic>Liquids</topic><topic>Mass</topic><topic>Mass transfer</topic><topic>Mathematical moments</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>Microphysics</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Ratings &amp; rankings</topic><topic>Snow</topic><topic>Stochastic models</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Water in the atmosphere (humidity, clouds, evaporation, precipitation)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gaudet, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Jerome M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied meteorology (1988)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gaudet, Brian J.</au><au>Schmidt, Jerome M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II: Numerical Bounding</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied meteorology (1988)</jtitle><date>2007-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>82</spage><epage>96</epage><pages>82-96</pages><issn>1558-8424</issn><issn>0894-8763</issn><eissn>1558-8432</eissn><eissn>1520-0450</eissn><coden>JOAMEZ</coden><abstract>Past microphysical investigations, including Part I of this study, have noted that the collection equation, when applied to the interaction between different hydrometeor species, can predict large mass transfer rates, even when an exact solution is used. The fractional depletion in a time step can even exceed unity for the collected species with plausible microphysical conditions and time steps, requiring “normalization” by a microphysical scheme. Although some of this problem can be alleviated through the use of more moment predictions and hydrometeor categories, the question as to why such “overdepletion” can be predicted in the first place remains insufficiently addressed. It is shown through both physical and conceptual arguments that the explicit time discretization of the bulk collection equation for any moment is not consistent with a quasi-stochastic view of collection. The result, under certain reasonable conditions, is a systematic overprediction of collection, which can become a serious error in the prediction of higher-order moments in a bulk scheme. The term numerical bounding is used to refer to the use of a quasi-stochastically consistent formula that prevents fractional collections exceeding unity for any moments. Through examples and analysis it is found that numerical bounding is typically important in mass moment prediction for time steps exceeding approximately 10 s. The Poisson-based numerical bounding scheme is shown to be simple in application and conceptualization; within a straightforward idealization it completely corrects overdepletion while even being immune to the rediagnosis error of the time-splitting method. The scheme’s range of applicability and utility are discussed.</abstract><cop>Boston, MA</cop><pub>American Meteorological Society</pub><doi>10.1175/JAM2442.1</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1558-8424
ispartof Journal of applied meteorology (1988), 2007-01, Vol.46 (1), p.82-96
issn 1558-8424
0894-8763
1558-8432
1520-0450
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_224366870
source JSTOR
subjects Cloud physics
Earth, ocean, space
Exact sciences and technology
External geophysics
Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models
Graupel
Hydrometeorology
Liquids
Mass
Mass transfer
Mathematical moments
Meteorology
Microphysics
Moisture content
Rain
Ratings & rankings
Snow
Stochastic models
Studies
Water in the atmosphere (humidity, clouds, evaporation, precipitation)
title Assessment of Hydrometeor Collection Rates from Exact and Approximate Equations. Part II: Numerical Bounding
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T11%3A27%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20Hydrometeor%20Collection%20Rates%20from%20Exact%20and%20Approximate%20Equations.%20Part%20II:%20Numerical%20Bounding&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20meteorology%20(1988)&rft.au=Gaudet,%20Brian%20J.&rft.date=2007-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=82&rft.epage=96&rft.pages=82-96&rft.issn=1558-8424&rft.eissn=1558-8432&rft.coden=JOAMEZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175/JAM2442.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26171883%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-8bbe940762e248550146d83a99dbaff7853e1013046e79717dfd5fbe9ece57593%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=224366870&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26171883&rfr_iscdi=true