Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1785-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1785-2018
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 2: Quasi-geostrophic Rossby 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 1: Nonhydrostatic inertia–gravity modes
Celal S. Konor and David A. Randall
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1753–1784, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018, 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

Arakawa, A. and Konor, C. S.: Unification of the anelastic and quasi-hydrostatic systems of equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 710–726, 2009. 
Dukowicz, J. K.: Mesh effects for Rossby waves, J. Comput. Phys., 160, 336–368, 1995. 
Konor, C.: Codes and data used for plotting some figures in Konor and Randall (2017), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1117930, 2017. 
Konor, C. S. and Randall, D. A.: Impacts of the horizontal and vertical grids on the numerical solutions of the dynamical equations – Part 1: Nonhydrostatic inertia–gravity modes, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1753–1784, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1753-2018, 2018. 
Neta, B. and Williams, R. T.: Rossby wave frequencies and group velocities for finite element and finite difference approximations to the vorticity-divergence and primitive forms of the shallow-water equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1439–1457, 1989. 
Short summary
We have discussed the effects of discretization on dispersion of midlatitude Rossby waves on the A, B, C, CD, (DC), D, E and Z horizontal grids, and the L and CP vertical grids. The Z, C, D and CD (DC) grids generate similar dispersion of the baroclinic and barotropic Rossby modes. The A, E and B grids generate multiple (non-unique) solutions. The modes with the smallest resolvable vertical scale on the L grid do not retrograde. The CP-grid solutions are much more accurate than the L grid.