American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

June  2020, 2(2): 173-205. doi: 10.3934/fods.2020010

Modelling uncertainty using stochastic transport noise in a 2-layer quasi-geostrophic model

 Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, Huxley Building, 180 Queen's Gate, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

* Corresponding author: Igor Shevchenko

Published  July 2020

The stochastic variational approach for geophysical fluid dynamics was introduced by Holm (Proc Roy Soc A, 2015) as a framework for deriving stochastic parameterisations for unresolved scales. This paper applies the variational stochastic parameterisation in a two-layer quasi-geostrophic model for a $\beta$-plane channel flow configuration. We present a new method for estimating the stochastic forcing (used in the parameterisation) to approximate unresolved components using data from the high resolution deterministic simulation, and describe a procedure for computing physically-consistent initial conditions for the stochastic model. We also quantify uncertainty of coarse grid simulations relative to the fine grid ones in homogeneous (teamed with small-scale vortices) and heterogeneous (featuring horizontally elongated large-scale jets) flows, and analyse how the spread of stochastic solutions depends on different parameters of the model. The parameterisation is tested by comparing it with the true eddy-resolving solution that has reached some statistical equilibrium and the deterministic solution modelled on a low-resolution grid. The results show that the proposed parameterisation significantly depends on the resolution of the stochastic model and gives good ensemble performance for both homogeneous and heterogeneous flows, and the parameterisation lays solid foundations for data assimilation.

Citation: Colin Cotter, Dan Crisan, Darryl Holm, Wei Pan, Igor Shevchenko. Modelling uncertainty using stochastic transport noise in a 2-layer quasi-geostrophic model. Foundations of Data Science, 2020, 2 (2) : 173-205. doi: 10.3934/fods.2020010
References:

show all references

References:
Shown is a schematic of the computational domain $\Omega$
The series of snapshots shows the high-resolution solution $q^f$ computed on the fine grid $G^f = 2049\times1025$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 1.9\, {\rm km}$), the true solution $q^a$ computed on the coarse grid $G^c = 257\times129$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 15\, {\rm km}$), and the low-resolution solution $q^m$ also computed on $G^c$ by simulating the QG model for the low drag $\boldsymbol{\mu = 4\times10^{-8}\, {\rm s^{-1}}}$ (heterogeneous flow). All the solutions are given in units of $[s^{-1}f^{-1}_0]$, where $f_0 = 0.83\times10^{-4}\, {\rm s^{-1}}$ is the Coriolis parameter. In order to visualize the solutions on the same color scale we have multiplied the ones in the second layer by a factor of 5
, but for $G^c = 129\times65$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 299\, {\rm km}$)">Figure 3.  The same as in Figure 2, but for $G^c = 129\times65$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 299\, {\rm km}$)
The series of snapshots shows the dependence of the solution on the resolution for the low drag $\boldsymbol{\mu = 4\times10^{-8}\, {\rm s^{-1}}}$ (heterogeneous flow). All the solutions are given in units of $[s^{-1}f^{-1}_0]$, where $f_0 = 0.83\times10^{-4}\, {\rm s^{-1}}$ is the Coriolis parameter. In order to visualize the solutions on the same color scale we have multiplied the ones in the second layer by a factor of 5
The series of snapshots in the figure shows the high-resolution solution $q^f$ computed on the fine grid $G^f = 2049\times1025$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 1.9\, {\rm km}$), the true solution $q^a$ computed on the coarse grid $G^c = 129\times65$ ($dx\approx dy\approx 299\, {\rm km}$), and the low-resolution solution $q^m$ computed on the coarse grid $G^c$ by simulating the QG model for the high drag $\boldsymbol{\mu = 4\times10^{-7}\, {\rm s^{-1}}}$ (homogeneous flow). All the solutions are given in units of $[s^{-1}f^{-1}_0]$, where $f_0 = 0.83\times10^{-4}\, {\rm s^{-1}}$ is the Coriolis parameter. In order to visualize the solutions on the same color scale we have multiplied the ones in the second layer by a factor of 5
Shown is a typical dependence of the area of the stochastic cloud $A^c$ on the size of the stochastic ensemble $\overline{\bf x}$. The left and right column shows the area of the stochastic cloud (marked in grey color) which consists of $N = 100$ and $N = 400$ ensemble members, respectively. The stochastic ensemble has been computed for the first 64 leading EOFs capturing 96% of the flow variability (top row) and the first 128 leading EOFs capturing 99% of the flow variability (bottom row). The true solution $\bar{\bf x}^c$ is marked with a black dot. The plot represents a typical part of the computational domain of size $[10,45]\times[45,65]$ in the first layer, which can be divided into two regions: a fast flow region (the boundary layer along the northern boundary $[10,45]\times[60,65]$, the jet occupying the domain $[10,45]\times[45,52]$) and a slow flow region $[10,45]\times(52,60)$
Shown are (a) instantaneous and (b) time-averaged normalized velocity fields for the heterogeneous flow
Shown is the dependence of the averaged area of the stochastic cloud for the slow, $\overline{A}^c_s$, and fast, $\overline{A}^c_f$, flow regions on the number of EOFs, $K$, and the size of the stochastic ensemble $N$
; $G^c = 129\times65$. Using $K = \{1,2,4,8,16,32,64\}$ leading EOFs allows to capture 23%, 42%, 60%, 77%, 89%, 96%, and 99% of the flow variability, respectively. The initial conditions for the stochastic model have been computed over the spin up period $T_{\rm spin} = [-8,0]$ hours">Figure 9.  Shown is the dependence of $\widetilde{R}_{\mathcal{S}}$ for the velocity component $u^a$ ($v^a$ is not shown, since it behaves qualitatively similar to $u^a$), stream function $\psi^a$, and PV anomaly $q^a$ on (a) the number of EOFs $K$ ($N = 100$ in this case) and (b) size of the stochastic ensemble $N$ ($K = 1$ in this case) over the time period $T = [0,21]$ days for the heterogeneous flow in Figure 3; $G^c = 129\times65$. Using $K = \{1,2,4,8,16,32,64\}$ leading EOFs allows to capture 23%, 42%, 60%, 77%, 89%, 96%, and 99% of the flow variability, respectively. The initial conditions for the stochastic model have been computed over the spin up period $T_{\rm spin} = [-8,0]$ hours
, but for $\widetilde{R}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}$">Figure 10.  The same as in Figure 9, but for $\widetilde{R}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}$
, but for $G^c = 257\times129$. We show $v^a$ component of the velocity field, since it behaves differently from $u^a$. For the higher resolution, using $K = \{1,2,4,8,16,32,64\}$ leading EOFs allows to capture 39%, 61%, 77%, 90%, 97%, 99%, and 99.8% of the flow variability, respectively">Figure 11.  The same as in Figure 9, but for $G^c = 257\times129$. We show $v^a$ component of the velocity field, since it behaves differently from $u^a$. For the higher resolution, using $K = \{1,2,4,8,16,32,64\}$ leading EOFs allows to capture 39%, 61%, 77%, 90%, 97%, 99%, and 99.8% of the flow variability, respectively
, but for $\widetilde{R}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}$">Figure 12.  The same as in Figure 11, but for $\widetilde{R}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}$
Evolution of $\overline{<\widetilde{T}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}>}$ for the heterogeneous flow and for different number of EOFs: $K = 1$ (solid line), $K = 2$ (solid line marked by a cross), $K = 4$ (solid line marked by an circle), as well as for different sizes of the stochastic ensemble: $N = 100$ (solid line), $N = 200$ (solid line marked by an asterisk), $N = 400$ (solid line marked by a square)
Evolution of the root mean square error $\overline{<RMSE(|\boldsymbol{u}|)>}$ (solid line) and standard deviation $\overline{<\sigma(|\boldsymbol{u}|)>}$ (dashed line) of the ensemble mean for the heterogeneous flow and different number of EOFs: $K = 1$ (solid/dashed line), $K = 2$ (solid/dashed line marked by a cross), $K = 4$ (solid/dashed line marked by an circle); and for different sizes of ensemble: $N = 100$ (solid/dashed line), $N = 200$ (solid/dashed line marked by an asterisk), $N = 400$ (solid/dashed line marked by a square). Note that the initial ensemble is biased
, but for an unbiased ensemble. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar">Figure 15.  The same as in Figure 14, but for an unbiased ensemble. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar
Evolution of the root mean square error, $\overline{<RMSE(|\boldsymbol{u}|)>}$ (solid line), and standard deviation, $\overline{<\sigma(|\boldsymbol{u}|)>}$ (dashed line), of the ensemble mean for the heterogeneous flow computed for $K = 1$, $N = 100$ and different amplitudes of the noise $dW$: $|dW| = 1$ (solid/dashed line), $|dW| = 5$ (solid/dashed line marked by a cross), $|dW| = 10$ (solid/dashed line marked by an circle). Not that the initial ensemble is unbiased. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar
; $G^c = 129\times65$. The initial conditions for the deterministic model have been computed over the spin up period $T_{\rm spin} = [-8,0]$ hours. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar">Figure 17.  Shown is the dependence of $R_{\mathcal{S}}$ (deterministic case) for the velocity component $u^a$ ($v^a$ is not shown, since it behaves qualitatively similar to $u^a$), stream function $\psi^a$, and PV anomaly $q^a$ on (a) the number of EOFs $K$ ($N = 100$ in this case) and (b) size of the stochastic ensemble $N$ ($K = 1$ in this case) over the time period $T = [0,21]$ days for the heterogeneous flow presented in Figure 3; $G^c = 129\times65$. The initial conditions for the deterministic model have been computed over the spin up period $T_{\rm spin} = [-8,0]$ hours. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar
, but for $G^c = 257\times129$. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar">Figure 18.  The same as in Figure 17, but for $G^c = 257\times129$. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar
Evolution of $\overline{<\widetilde{T}_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}>}$ (solid line; stochastic case) and $\overline{<T_{\mathcal{S}_{\sigma}}>}$ (dashed line; deterministic case) for the heterogeneous flow; the number of leading EOFs is $K = 1$, and the size of the ensemble is $N = 100$. The results for the homogeneous flow look very similar
Typical rank histograms for heterogeneous flow velocity $\mathbf{u} = (u,v)$ at different locations (not shown) and resolutions. Note that a pair of histograms at different resolutions shares the same location in the computation domain. Each histogram is based on 1000 forecast-observation pairs generated by solving the stochastic QG model. For simulating the stochastic QG model we use 100 stochastic solutions and 32 leading EOFs. Each stochastic solution for the rank histogram is selected randomly from the ensemble every 4 hours. The rank histograms at the higher resolution are flatter and t hus the forecasts are more reliable, although this resolution is still much less than the reference simulation
The series of snapshots shows the true deterministic solution $q^a_1$ computed on $G^c = \{129\times65$, $257\times129 \}$, and the low-resolution parameterised solution $\bar{q}^p_1$ (averaged over the stochastic ensemble of size $N = 100$) computed on the same coarse grids by simulating the stochastic QG model from a randomly perturbed zero initial condition for the heterogeneous flow; the parameterised solution uses 32 leading EOFs. All solutions are given in units of $[s^{-1}f^{-1}_0]$, where $f_0 = 0.83\times10^{-4}\, {\rm s^{-1}}$ is the Coriolis parameter. The true solutions correspond to day 1 and presented here just to show the structure of the flow
The series of snapshots shows the true deterministic solution $q^a_1$, modelled solution $q^m_1$ computed with the deterministic QG model, and parameterised solution $\bar{q}^p_1$ (averaged over the stochastic ensemble of size $N = 100$) computed with the stochastic QG model. All solutions were computed on the same grid $G^c = 129\times65$, have the same initial condition, and the parameterised solution uses 32 leading EOFs. All fields are given in units of $[s^{-1}f^{-1}_0]$, where $f_0 = 0.83\times10^{-4}\, {\rm s^{-1}}$ is the Coriolis parameter
, but for $G^c = 257\times129$">Figure 23.  The same as in Figure 22, but for $G^c = 257\times129$
Shown is the relative $l_2$-norm error between the true deterministic solution, ${\bf u}^a$, and modelled solution ${\bf u}^m$ (red line) and parameterised solution ${\bf u}^p$ (blue line) as a function of time
 [1] T. Tachim Medjo. Multi-layer quasi-geostrophic equations of the ocean with delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2008, 10 (1) : 171-196. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2008.10.171 [2] T. Tachim Medjo. Averaging of a multi-layer quasi-geostrophic equations with oscillating external forces. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2014, 13 (3) : 1119-1140. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2014.13.1119 [3] Qingshan Chen. On the well-posedness of the inviscid multi-layer quasi-geostrophic equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2019, 39 (6) : 3215-3237. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2019133 [4] Yanhong Zhang. Global attractors of two layer baroclinic quasi-geostrophic model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021023 [5] Tongtong Liang, Yejuan Wang. Sub-critical and critical stochastic quasi-geostrophic equations with infinite delay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (9) : 4697-4726. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020309 [6] Jinsen Zhuang, Yan Zhou, Yonghui Xia. Synchronization analysis of drive-response multi-layer dynamical networks with additive couplings and stochastic perturbations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (4) : 1607-1629. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020279 [7] Alex Capaldi, Samuel Behrend, Benjamin Berman, Jason Smith, Justin Wright, Alun L. Lloyd. Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification for an epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2012, 9 (3) : 553-576. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.553 [8] Justin Cyr, Phuong Nguyen, Roger Temam. Stochastic one layer shallow water equations with Lévy noise. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (8) : 3765-3818. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018331 [9] Jeffrey J. Early, Juha Pohjanpelto, Roger M. Samelson. Group foliation of equations in geophysical fluid dynamics. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2010, 27 (4) : 1571-1586. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.27.1571 [10] Carina Geldhauser, Marco Romito. Point vortices for inviscid generalized surface quasi-geostrophic models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (7) : 2583-2606. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020023 [11] May Ramzi, Zahrouni Ezzeddine. Global existence of solutions for subcritical quasi-geostrophic equations. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2008, 7 (5) : 1179-1191. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2008.7.1179 [12] Zhigang Pan, Chanh Kieu, Quan Wang. Hopf bifurcations and transitions of two-dimensional Quasi-Geostrophic flows. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (4) : 1385-1412. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2021025 [13] Guido Cavallaro, Roberto Garra, Carlo Marchioro. Long time localization of modified surface quasi-geostrophic equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (9) : 5135-5148. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020336 [14] Haigang Li, Jenn-Nan Wang, Ling Wang. Refined stability estimates in electrical impedance tomography with multi-layer structure. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2021048 [15] T. Caraballo, M. J. Garrido-Atienza, J. López-de-la-Cruz. Dynamics of some stochastic chemostat models with multiplicative noise. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2017, 16 (5) : 1893-1914. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2017092 [16] Badr-eddine Berrhazi, Mohamed El Fatini, Tomás Caraballo, Roger Pettersson. A stochastic SIRI epidemic model with Lévy noise. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (6) : 2415-2431. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018057 [17] Igor Chueshov, Björn Schmalfuß. Stochastic dynamics in a fluid--plate interaction model with the only longitudinal deformations of the plate. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (3) : 833-852. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.833 [18] Yong Zhou. Decay rate of higher order derivatives for solutions to the 2-D dissipative quasi-geostrophic flows. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2006, 14 (3) : 525-532. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2006.14.525 [19] Hongjie Dong, Dapeng Du. Global well-posedness and a decay estimate for the critical dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation in the whole space. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2008, 21 (4) : 1095-1101. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2008.21.1095 [20] Wen Tan, Bo-Qing Dong, Zhi-Min Chen. Large-time regular solutions to the modified quasi-geostrophic equation in Besov spaces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2019, 39 (7) : 3749-3765. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2019152

Impact Factor: