Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018
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

Related authors

DCMIP2016: the tropical cyclone test case
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-87,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-87, 2023
Preprint under review for GMD
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
Impacts of the horizontal and vertical grids on the numerical solutions of the dynamical equations – Part 2: Quasi-geostrophic Rossby modes
Celal S. Konor and David A. Randall
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1785–1797, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1785-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1785-2018, 2018
Short summary
DCMIP2016: a review of non-hydrostatic dynamical core design and intercomparison of participating models
Paul A. Ullrich, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Kevin A. Reed, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Joseph Klemp, Sang-Hun Park, William Skamarock, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, Ryuji Yoshida, Robert Walko, Alex Reinecke, and Kevin Viner
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4477–4509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4477-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4477-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Hydrological modelling on atmospheric grids: using graphs of sub-grid elements to transport energy and water
Jan Polcher, Anthony Schrapffer, Eliott Dupont, Lucia Rinchiuso, Xudong Zhou, Olivier Boucher, Emmanuel Mouche, Catherine Ottlé, and Jérôme Servonnat
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2583–2606, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2583-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2583-2023, 2023
Short summary
The sea level simulator v1.0: a model for integration of mean sea level change and sea level extremes into a joint probabilistic framework
Magnus Hieronymus
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2343–2354, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2343-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2343-2023, 2023
Short summary
Structural k-means (S k-means) and clustering uncertainty evaluation framework (CUEF) for mining climate data
Quang-Van Doan, Toshiyuki Amagasa, Thanh-Ha Pham, Takuto Sato, Fei Chen, and Hiroyuki Kusaka
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2215–2233, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2215-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2215-2023, 2023
Short summary
The emergence of the Gulf Stream and interior western boundary as key regions to constrain the future North Atlantic carbon uptake
Nadine Goris, Klaus Johannsen, and Jerry Tjiputra
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2095–2117, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2095-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2095-2023, 2023
Short summary
Evaluating wind profiles in a numerical weather prediction model with Doppler lidar
Pyry Pentikäinen, Ewan J. O'Connor, and Pablo Ortiz-Amezcua
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2077–2094, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2077-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2077-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Adcroft, A., Hill, C., and Marshall, J.: A new treatment of the Coriolis terms in C grid models at both high and low resolutions, Mon. Weather Rev., 127, 1928–1936, 1999. 
Adcroft, A., Hallberg, R., Griffies, S., and Dunne, J.: Next-generation ocean and ice models at GFDL: MOM6, SI2, and icebergs, available at: http://cosima.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MOM6-overview-May-27.pdf, 2016. 
Arakawa, A.: Finite-difference methods in climate modeling, in: Physically Based Modelling and Simulation of Climate and Climate Change, Part I, edited by: Schlesinger, M. E., Kluwer Academic Publisher, 79–168, 1988. 
Arakawa, A.: A personal perspective on the early years of general circulation modeling at UCLA, General Circulation Model Development, Past, Present, and Future, edited by: Randall, D. A., Academic Press, 70, 1–65, 2000. 
Arakawa, A. and Konor, C. S.: Vertical differencing of primitive equations based on the Charney-Phillips grid in hybrid σ-p vertical coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 124, 511–528, 1996. 
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.