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
Emission ensemble approach to improve the development of multi-scale emission inventories
Philippe Thunis, Jeroen Kuenen, Enrico Pisoni, Bertrand Bessagnet, Manjola Banja, Lech Gawuc, Karol Szymankiewicz, Diego Guizardi, Monica Crippa, Susana Lopez-Aparicio, Marc Guevara, Alexander De Meij, Sabine Schindlbacher, and Alain Clappier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3631–3643, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024, 2024
Short summary
What is the relative impact of nudging and online coupling on meteorological variables, pollutant concentrations and aerosol optical properties?
Laurent Menut, Bertrand Bessagnet, Arineh Cholakian, Guillaume Siour, Sylvain Mailler, and Romain Pennel
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3645–3665, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3645-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3645-2024, 2024
Short summary
Diagnosing drivers of PM2.5 simulation biases in China from meteorology, chemical composition, and emission sources using an efficient machine learning method
Shuai Wang, Mengyuan Zhang, Yueqi Gao, Peng Wang, Qingyan Fu, and Hongliang Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3617–3629, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3617-2024, 2024
Short summary
Validation and analysis of the Polair3D v1.11 chemical transport model over Quebec
Shoma Yamanouchi, Shayamilla Mahagammulla Gamage, Sara Torbatian, Jad Zalzal, Laura Minet, Audrey Smargiassi, Ying Liu, Ling Liu, Forood Azargoshasbi, Jinwoong Kim, Youngseob Kim, Daniel Yazgi, and Marianne Hatzopoulou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3579–3597, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3579-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3579-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assimilation of GNSS tropospheric gradients into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.4.1
Rohith Thundathil, Florian Zus, Galina Dick, and Jens Wickert
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3599–3616, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3599-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3599-2024, 2024
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.