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
Accurate space-based NOx emission estimates with the flux divergence approach require fine-scale model information on local oxidation chemistry and profile shapes
Felipe Cifuentes, Henk Eskes, Enrico Dammers, Charlotte Bryan, and Folkert Boersma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 621–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025, 2025
Short summary
Exploring a high-level programming model for the NWP domain using ECMWF microphysics schemes
Stefano Ubbiali, Christian Kühnlein, Christoph Schär, Linda Schlemmer, Thomas C. Schulthess, Michael Staneker, and Heini Wernli
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 529–546, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying uncertainties in satellite NO2 superobservations for data assimilation and model evaluation
Pieter Rijsdijk, Henk Eskes, Arlene Dingemans, K. Folkert Boersma, Takashi Sekiya, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 483–509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025, 2025
Short summary
ML-AMPSIT: Machine Learning-based Automated Multi-method Parameter Sensitivity and Importance analysis Tool
Dario Di Santo, Cenlin He, Fei Chen, and Lorenzo Giovannini
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 433–459, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025, 2025
Short summary
Coupling the urban canopy model TEB (SURFEXv9.0) with the radiation model SPARTACUS-Urbanv0.6.1 for more realistic urban radiative exchange calculation
Robert Schoetter, Robin James Hogan, Cyril Caliot, and Valéry Masson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 405–431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025, 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