Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1753–1784, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1753–1784, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018

Methods for assessment of models 08 May 2018

Methods for assessment of models | 08 May 2018

Impacts of the horizontal and vertical grids on the numerical solutions of the dynamical equations – Part 1: Nonhydrostatic inertia–gravity modes

Celal S. Konor and David A. Randall

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Celal Konor on behalf of the Authors (15 Mar 2018)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Mar 2018) by Paul Ullrich
AR by Celal Konor on behalf of the Authors (26 Mar 2018)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (27 Mar 2018) by Paul Ullrich
Short summary
We have discussed the discretizations of the three-dimensional nonhydrostatic linearized anelastic equations on the A, B, C, CD, (DC), D, E and Z horizontal grids, and on the L and CP vertical grids, with an emphasis on midlatitude inertia–gravity waves. The Z and C grids show the most accurate dispersion among the seven horizontal grids. The inertia–gravity mode solutions with the D and CD grids are almost identical. The A, B and E grids suffer from the multiple (or non-unique) physical modes.