Articles | Volume 8, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1831-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1831-2015
Development and technical paper
 | 
22 Jun 2015
Development and technical paper |  | 22 Jun 2015

Verifications of the high-resolution numerical model and polarization relations of atmospheric acoustic-gravity waves

N. M. Gavrilov, S. P. Kshevetskii, and A. V. Koval

Related authors

Numerical modelling of relative contribution of planetary waves to the atmospheric circulation
Andrey V. Koval, Olga N. Toptunova, Maxim A. Motsakov, Ksenia A. Didenko, Tatiana S. Ermakova, Nikolai M. Gavrilov, and Eugene V. Rozanov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 4105–4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4105-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4105-2023, 2023
Short summary
Decay times of atmospheric acoustic–gravity waves after deactivation of wave forcing
Nikolai M. Gavrilov, Sergey P. Kshevetskii, and Andrey V. Koval
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13713–13724, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13713-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13713-2022, 2022
Short summary
Modelling the residual mean meridional circulation at different stages of sudden stratospheric warming events
Andrey V. Koval, Wen Chen, Ksenia A. Didenko, Tatiana S. Ermakova, Nikolai M. Gavrilov, Alexander I. Pogoreltsev, Olga N. Toptunova, Ke Wei, Anna N. Yarusova, and Anton S. Zarubin
Ann. Geophys., 39, 357–368, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-357-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-357-2021, 2021
Short summary
Correct boundary conditions for DNS models of nonlinear acoustic-gravity waves forced by atmospheric pressure variations
Yuliya Kurdyaeva, Sergey Kshevetskii, Nikolay Gavrilov, and Sergey Kulichkov
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-76,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-76, 2017
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Comparisons of CH4 ground-based FTIR measurements near Saint Petersburg with GOSAT observations
N. M. Gavrilov, M. V. Makarova, A. V. Poberovskii, and Yu. M. Timofeyev
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1003–1010, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1003-2014,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1003-2014, 2014

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

Andreassen, O., Hvidsten, O., Fritts, D., and Arendt, S.: Vorticity dynamics in a breaking internal gravity wave. Part 1. Initial instability evolution, J. Fluid. Mech., 367, 27–46, 1998.
Baker, D. and Schubert, G.: Convectively generated internal gravity waves in the lower atmosphere of Venus. Part II: mean wind shear and wave-mean flow interaction, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 200–215, 2000.
Beer, T.: Atmospheric waves, Adam Hilder, London, 1974.
Fritts, D. C. and Alexander, M. J.: Gravity wave dynamics and effects in the middle atmosphere, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001RG000106, 2003.
Fritts, D. C. and Garten, J. F.: Wave breaking and transition to turbulence in stratified shear flows, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 1057–1085, 1996.
Download
Short summary
We performed high-resolution numerical simulations of nonlinear acoustic-gravity waves (AGWs) at altitudes 0–500km and compared them with analytical polarization relations of linear AGW theory. After some transition time, t > te, the numbers of numerically simulated and analytical pairs of AGW parameters, which are equal to confidence 95%, are larger at altitudes 30-60km and are smaller at t < te. The differences reveal circumstances where numerical simulations of waves are required.
Share