Articles | Volume 10, issue 12
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4477–4509, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4477-2017

Special issue: Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project 2016

Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4477–4509, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4477-2017

Review and perspective paper 06 Dec 2017

Review and perspective paper | 06 Dec 2017

DCMIP2016: a review of non-hydrostatic dynamical core design and intercomparison of participating models

Paul A. Ullrich et al.

Related authors

TempestExtremes v2.1: A Community Framework for Feature Detection, Tracking and Analysis in Large Datasets
Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, Elizabeth E. McClenny, Marielle C. Pinheiro, Alyssa M. Stansfield, and Kevin A. Reed
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-303,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-303, 2021
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Simulator for Hydrologic Unstructured Domains (SHUD v1.0): numerical modeling of watershed hydrology with the finite volume method
Lele Shu, Paul A. Ullrich, and Christopher J. Duffy
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2743–2762, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2743-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2743-2020, 2020
Short summary
DCMIP2016: the splitting supercell test case
Colin M. Zarzycki, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Kevin A. Reed, Paul A. Ullrich, David M. Hall, Mark A. Taylor, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Christian Kühnlein, Robert Walko, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Monique Tanguay, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, Ryuji Yoshida, Sang-Hun Park, Joseph B. Klemp, and William C. Skamarock
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 879–892, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-879-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-879-2019, 2019
Short summary
Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP): project goals and experimental design
Christine A. Shields, Jonathan J. Rutz, Lai-Yung Leung, F. Martin Ralph, Michael Wehner, Brian Kawzenuk, Juan M. Lora, Elizabeth McClenny, Tashiana Osborne, Ashley E. Payne, Paul Ullrich, Alexander Gershunov, Naomi Goldenson, Bin Guan, Yun Qian, Alexandre M. Ramos, Chandan Sarangi, Scott Sellars, Irina Gorodetskaya, Karthik Kashinath, Vitaliy Kurlin, Kelly Mahoney, Grzegorz Muszynski, Roger Pierce, Aneesh C. Subramanian, Ricardo Tome, Duane Waliser, Daniel Walton, Gary Wick, Anna Wilson, David Lavers, Prabhat, Allison Collow, Harinarayan Krishnan, Gudrun Magnusdottir, and Phu Nguyen
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2455–2474, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018, 2018
Short summary
Implicit–explicit (IMEX) Runge–Kutta methods for non-hydrostatic atmospheric models
David J. Gardner, Jorge E. Guerra, François P. Hamon, Daniel R. Reynolds, Paul A. Ullrich, and Carol S. Woodward
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1497–1515, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1497-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1497-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth System Modeling
FORTE 2.0: a fast, parallel and flexible coupled climate model
Adam T. Blaker, Manoj Joshi, Bablu Sinha, David P. Stevens, Robin S. Smith, and Joël J.-M. Hirschi
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 275–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-275-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-275-2021, 2021
Short summary
Optimization of the sulfate aerosol hygroscopicity parameter in WRF-Chem
Ah-Hyun Kim, Seong Soo Yum, Dong Yeong Chang, and Minsu Park
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 259–273, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-259-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-259-2021, 2021
Short summary
Updated European hydraulic pedotransfer functions with communicated uncertainties in the predicted variables (euptfv2)
Brigitta Szabó, Melanie Weynants, and Tobias K. D. Weber
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-151-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-151-2021, 2021
Short summary
Spin-up characteristics with three types of initial fields and the restart effects on forecast accuracy in the GRAPES global forecast system
Zhanshan Ma, Chuanfeng Zhao, Jiandong Gong, Jin Zhang, Zhe Li, Jian Sun, Yongzhu Liu, Jiong Chen, and Qingu Jiang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 205–221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021, 2021
Short summary
GTS v1.0: a macrophysics scheme for climate models based on a probability density function
Chein-Jung Shiu, Yi-Chi Wang, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Wei-Ting Chen, Hua-Lu Pan, Ruiyu Sun, Yi-Hsuan Chen, and Cheng-An Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 177–204, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-177-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-177-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Arakawa, A. and Konor, C. S.: Unification of the anelastic and quasi-hydrostatic systems of equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 710–726, 2009.
Arakawa, A. and Lamb, V. R.: Computational design of the basic dynamical processes of the UCLA general circulation model, Meth. Comput. Phys., 17, 173–265, 1977.
Arakawa, A. and Moorthi, S.: Baroclinic instability in vertically discrete systems, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1688–1708, 1988.
Ascher, U. M., Ruuth, S. J., and Spiteri, R. J.: Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations, Appl. Numer. Math., 25, 151–167, 1997.
Baba, Y., Takahashi, K., Sugimura, T., and Goto, K.: Dynamical core of an atmospheric general circulation model on a yin–yang grid, Mon. Weather Rev., 138, 3988–4005, 2010.
Short summary
Atmospheric dynamical cores are a fundamental component of global atmospheric modeling systems and are responsible for capturing the dynamical behavior of the Earth's atmosphere. To better understand modern dynamical cores, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of 11 dynamical cores, drawn from modeling centers and groups that participated in the 2016 Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP) workshop and summer school.