Technical note: Evaluation of conceptual predator-prey models for the quantitative modeling of precipitating open-cell stratocumulus via feature-based Bayesian inversion of a suite of Large eddy simulations
Abstract. We consider two very different types of models of precipitating open-cell stratocumulus clouds. The first model type is a computationally expensive large eddy simulation (LES), that resolves convection and clouds at high temporal and spatial resolutions. The second model type is the nonlinear cloud and rain (C&R) equation, a scalar delay differential equation (DDE) that interprets interactions of precipitation and clouds phenomenologically by predator (rain) and prey (cloud) dynamics. We evaluate the extent to which one may use the C&R equation as a quantitative tool for representing selected aspects of an LES. Specifically, we estimate parameters of the C&R equation from a suite of LES via feature-based Bayesian inversions and track the evolution of posterior distributions over C&R model parameters under changing meteorological conditions in the LES. Our inversions show that the C&R equation can be calibrated to generate limit cycles that are quantitatively compatible with cycles of cloud growth and decay across a wide spectrum of meteorological conditions. The successful inversions reiterate the robustness of the predator-prey analogy to the dynamics of precipitating open-cell stratocumulus. When we interpret the inversions jointly, however, we observe counterintuitive and partially nonphysical shifts and changes in the posterior distributions over the C&R model parameters. Our evaluation study thus highlights the challenges one faces when mapping LES dynamics to a scalar DDE, which can stem either from structural inadequacies in the DDE model, or from the specific feature-based inversion framework, or a mixture of both.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.