Chapter 11 · Lorenz 96: a many-variable atmosphere analogue
Overview
Everything in Part III was measured on a three-variable system. A forecast model has . Which of those conclusions survive the change of scale?
The question is not rhetorical, and chapter 16 already found a casualty: in Lorenz 63 the gradient of a forecast metric points almost exactly along the fastest-growing direction, and in a forty-variable system the two are nearly orthogonal. Something has to sit between three variables and a general circulation model.
Read it as a latitude circle: the quadratic terms conserve and stand in for advection, is dissipation, is the forcing. Nothing about it is derived from the equations of motion. It earns its place by being the smallest system that behaves like a field — errors have a wavelength, structures propagate, and the attractor grows with the domain.
The model
chaoslib.systems supplies the right-hand side and its Jacobian; chaoslib.spatial
(new in this chapter, and used again in chapter 12) supplies the diagnostics that only
make sense once a system has a space: power spectra, phase speeds, correlation lengths.
Two exact identities anchor the chapter. Every diagonal entry of the Jacobian is , so for every , every and every trajectory. And the Jacobian at the uniform state is circulant, so Fourier modes diagonalise it in closed form:
That is not an approximation — it reproduces all eigenvalues to .
Four results
The wavelength is set by a linear instability, and comes out in closed form. Taking real parts, ; with the bracket is , maximised at with value . So a long chain destabilises at and a finite one at — exactly at , where the best available mode is . The nonlinear flow peaks one wavenumber away, at .
Linear theory gets the scale nearly right and the speed badly wrong. The measured phase speed of the dominant mode is sites per time unit against predicted — a factor of 3.5. The prediction is made about a state the system is nowhere near, and finite-amplitude waves propagate on a flow they have themselves modified. The same lesson as chapter 15’s window of validity, from a different direction: the linearisation is quantitatively reliable for the instability that creates a structure, not for that structure’s later life.
There are two thresholds, and they are far apart. The uniform state loses stability at , but stays within of zero until about — periodic waves with no error growth at all — and only becomes robustly positive near . At the spectrum has 13 positive exponents, nats per time unit and , against Lorenz 63’s 1, 0.905 and 2.06. The forty exponents sum to to within , a residual that is RK4 truncation and not non-convergence: it is independent of the averaging time and falls as , both asserted by tests.
The model is extensive, and that is the point. Because the dynamics are local and the correlation length is a couple of sites, doubling the ring does not create a faster instability — it creates more independent copies of the same one. Measured over a 6.7-fold range of domain size: is flat above (mean 1.711), the spectra collapse onto a single curve under , and and through the origin, with varying by 2.4% across the whole range. Below is suppressed, for a visible reason: the preferred wavelength is 4.4 sites, so a 12-site ring holds fewer than three waves and the instability is cramped by its own periodicity.
The forecasting consequence is a ratio. Lead time is set by , an intensive quantity — a property of the dynamics that no amount of computing changes. The number of directions an ensemble must span is set by , an extensive one. At 0.34 growing directions per variable, a model with variables has of order of them, so fifty members is a rounding error against what needs sampling. Every ensemble method in Part V is a strategy for living with that ratio, and chapter 19’s localisation is a direct exploitation of the locality that makes the system extensive in the first place.
Exercises
Analytic. Derive from the Jacobian at , and show that the maximum of is at . Deduce in the continuum limit, and explain why a finite ring’s threshold is always above that value.
Computational. Verify the trace identity at two values of and confirm that the residual falls by roughly 16 when is halved while being unchanged by doubling the averaging time. Explain what each of those two facts rules out.
Exploratory. Measure the correlation length at and at , and use it to account for the suppression of at small . How many correlation lengths does a ring need before it counts as large?
Further reading
- Lorenz, E. N. (1996). Predictability: a problem partly solved. Proceedings of the ECMWF Seminar on Predictability, vol. 1, 1–18.
- Lorenz, E. N. and Emanuel, K. A. (1998). Optimal sites for supplementary weather observations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 55, 399–414.
- Kalnay, E. (2003). Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability, §5.5 [citation needed: confirm section].
- Grassberger, P. (1989). Information content and predictability of lumped and distributed dynamical systems [citation needed] — extensivity of the Lyapunov spectrum in spatially extended systems.