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
Sensitivity studies of a four-dimensional local ensemble transform Kalman filter coupled with WRF-Chem version 3.9.1 for improving particulate matter simulation accuracy
Jianyu Lin, Tie Dai, Lifang Sheng, Weihang Zhang, Shangfei Hai, and Yawen Kong
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2231–2248, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2231-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2231-2025, 2025
Short summary
A Bayesian method for predicting background radiation at environmental monitoring stations in local-scale networks
Jens Peter Karolus Wenceslaus Frankemölle, Johan Camps, Pieter De Meutter, and Johan Meyers
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1989–2003, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025, 2025
Short summary
Inclusion of the ECMWF ecRad radiation scheme (v1.5.0) in the MAR (v3.14), regional evaluation for Belgium, and assessment of surface shortwave spectral fluxes at Uccle
Jean-François Grailet, Robin J. Hogan, Nicolas Ghilain, David Bolsée, Xavier Fettweis, and Marilaure Grégoire
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1965–1988, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1965-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Development of a fast radiative transfer model for ground-based microwave radiometers (ARMS-gb v1.0): validation and comparison to RTTOV-gb
Yi-Ning Shi, Jun Yang, Wei Han, Lujie Han, Jiajia Mao, Wanlin Kan, and Fuzhong Weng
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1947–1964, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025, 2025
Short summary
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) High-Resolution Global Forecast Model version 1: an attempt to resolve monsoon prediction deadlock
R. Phani Murali Krishna, Siddharth Kumar, A. Gopinathan Prajeesh, Peter Bechtold, Nils Wedi, Kumar Roy, Malay Ganai, B. Revanth Reddy, Snehlata Tirkey, Tanmoy Goswami, Radhika Kanase, Sahadat Sarkar, Medha Deshpande, and Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1879–1894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025, 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