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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of applied meteorology (1988) 2007-01, Vol.46 (1), p.82-96 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
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 & 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&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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & 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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & 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 & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & 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 |