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
Carbon dioxide plume dispersion simulated at the hectometer scale using DALES: model formulation and observational evaluation
Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Fredrik Jansson, Bart J. H. van Stratum, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Jordi Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4571–4599, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4571-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4571-2025, 2025
Short summary
Low-level jets in the North and Baltic seas: mesoscale model sensitivity and climatology using WRF V4.2.1
Bjarke T. E. Olsen, Andrea N. Hahmann, Nicolas G. Alonso-de-Linaje, Mark Žagar, and Martin Dörenkämper
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4499–4533, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025, 2025
Short summary
SynRad v1.0: a radar forward operator to simulate synthetic weather radar observations from volcanic ash clouds
Vishnu Nair, Anujah Mohanathan, Michael Herzog, David G. Macfarlane, and Duncan A. Robertson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4417–4432, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025, 2025
Short summary
Chempath 1.0: an open-source pathway analysis program for photochemical models
Daniel Garduno Ruiz, Colin Goldblatt, and Anne-Sofie Ahm
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4433–4454, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4433-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4433-2025, 2025
Short summary
PALACE v1.0: Paranal Airglow Line And Continuum Emission model
Stefan Noll, Carsten Schmidt, Patrick Hannawald, Wolfgang Kausch, and Stefan Kimeswenger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4353–4398, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4353-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4353-2025, 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