Articles | Volume 16, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6805-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6805-2023
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
23 Nov 2023
Methods for assessment of models |  | 23 Nov 2023

A mountain-induced moist baroclinic wave test case for the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models

Owen K. Hughes and Christiane Jablonowski

Related authors

The fully coupled regionally refined model of E3SM version 2: overview of the atmosphere, land, and river results
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
New submodel for emissions from Explosive Volcanic ERuptions (EVER v1.1) within the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy, version 2.55.1)
Matthias Kohl, Christoph Brühl, Jennifer Schallock, Holger Tost, Patrick Jöckel, Adrian Jost, Steffen Beirle, Michael Höpfner, and Andrea Pozzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying the oscillatory evolution of simulated boundary-layer cloud fields using Gaussian process regression
Gunho Loren Oh and Philip H. Austin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3921–3940, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3921-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3921-2025, 2025
Short summary
Numerical investigations on the modelling of ultrafine particles in SSH-aerosol-v1.3a: size resolution and redistribution
Oscar Jacquot and Karine Sartelet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3965–3984, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3965-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3965-2025, 2025
Short summary
The third Met Office Unified Model–JULES Regional Atmosphere and Land Configuration, RAL3
Mike Bush, David L. A. Flack, Huw W. Lewis, Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel, Chris J. Short, Charmaine Franklin, Adrian P. Lock, Martin Best, Paul Field, Anne McCabe, Kwinten Van Weverberg, Segolene Berthou, Ian Boutle, Jennifer K. Brooke, Seb Cole, Shaun Cooper, Gareth Dow, John Edwards, Anke Finnenkoetter, Kalli Furtado, Kate Halladay, Kirsty Hanley, Margaret A. Hendry, Adrian Hill, Aravindakshan Jayakumar, Richard W. Jones, Humphrey Lean, Joshua C. K. Lee, Andy Malcolm, Marion Mittermaier, Saji Mohandas, Stuart Moore, Cyril Morcrette, Rachel North, Aurore Porson, Susan Rennie, Nigel Roberts, Belinda Roux, Claudio Sanchez, Chun-Hsu Su, Simon Tucker, Simon Vosper, David Walters, James Warner, Stuart Webster, Mark Weeks, Jonathan Wilkinson, Michael Whitall, Keith D. Williams, and Hugh Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3819–3855, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, 2025
Short summary
The sensitivity of aerosol data assimilation to vertical profiles: case study of dust storm assimilation with LOTOS-EUROS v2.2
Mijie Pang, Jianbing Jin, Ting Yang, Xi Chen, Arjo Segers, Batjargal Buyantogtokh, Yixuan Gu, Jiandong Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Hong Liao, and Wei Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3781–3798, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Chen, C.-T. and Knutson, T.: On the Verification and Comparison of Extreme Rainfall Indices from Climate Models, J. Climate, 21, 1605–1621, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1494.1, 2008. a
Colella, P. and Woodward, P. R.: The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for Gas-Dynamical Simulations, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174–201, 1984. a
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a
Dudhia, J.: A Nonhydrostatic Version of the Penn State-NCAR Mesoscale Model: Validation Tests and Simulation of an Atlantic Cyclone and Cold Front, Mon. Weather Rev., 121, 1493–1513, 1993. a, b
Durran, D. R. and Klemp, J. B.: A compressible model for the simulation of moist mountain waves, Mon. Weather Rev., 111, 2341–2361, 1983. a, b, c, d
Download
Short summary
Atmospheric models benefit from idealized tests that assess their accuracy in a simpler simulation. A new test with artificial mountains is developed for models on a spherical earth. The mountains trigger the development of both planetary-scale and small-scale waves. These can be analyzed in dry or moist environments, with a simple rainfall mechanism. Four atmospheric models are intercompared. This sheds light on the pros and cons of the model design and the impact of mountains on the flow.
Share