A global non-hydrostatic dynamical core using the spectral element method on a cubed-sphere grid
- 157 Downloads
A new global model with a non-hydrostatic (NH) dynamical core is developed. It employs the spectral element method (SEM) in the horizontal discretization and the finite difference method (FDM) in the vertical discretization. The solver includes a time-split third-order Runge-Kutta (RK3) time-integration technique. Pursuing the quasi-uniform and pole singularity-free spherical geometry, a cubed-sphere grid is employed. To assess the performance of the developed dynamical solver, the results from a number of idealized benchmark tests for hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic flows are presented and compared. The results indicate that the non-hydrostatic dynamical solver is able to produce solutions with good accuracy and consistency comparable to reference solutions. Further evaluation of the model with a full-physics package demonstrates its capability in reproducing heavy rainfall over the Korean Peninsula, which confirms that coupling of the dynamical solver and full-physics package is robust.
Key wordsNon-hydrostatic model spectral element method cubed-sphere grid idealized tests numerical weather prediction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alpert, J. C., M. Kanamitsu, P. M. Caplan, J. G. Sela, G. H. White, and E. Kalnay, 1988: Mountain induced gravity wave drag parameterization in the NMC medium-range forecast model. Preprints. 8th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Baltimore, MD, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 726–733.Google Scholar
- Dennis, J., J. Edwards, K. J. Evans, O. N. Guba, P. H. Lauritzen, A. A. Mirin, A. St-Cyr, M. A. Taylor, and P. H. Worly, 2011: CAM-SE: a scalable spectral element dynamical core for the community atmosphere model. Int. J. High Perf. Comput. Appl., doi:10.1177/1094342011428142.Google Scholar
- Govett, M. W., J. Middlecoff, and T. Henderson, 2010: Running the NIM next-generation weather model on GPUs. 10th IEEE Int. Symp. on Cluster Computing and the Grid, IEEE, 792–796.Google Scholar
- Lauritzen, P. H., C. Jablonowski, M. A. Taylor, and R. D. Nair, 2010: Rotated versions of the Jablonowski steady-state and baroclinic wave test cases: A dynamical core intercomparison. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 2, doi:10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.15.Google Scholar
- Skamarock, W. C., J. B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, D. O. Gill, D. M. Barker, M. G. Duda, X. Y. Huang, W. Wang, and J. G. Powers, 2008: A desciption of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech. Note TN-475+STR.Google Scholar
- Ullrich, P. A., C. Jablonowski, J. Kent, P. H. Lauritzen, R. D. Nair, and M. A. Taylor, 2012: Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP) Test Case Document. [Available online at https://www.earthsystemcog.org/site_media/docs/DCMIP-TestCaseDocument_v1.7.pdf].Google Scholar
- Wedi, N. P., K. Yessad, and A. Untch, 2009: The nonhydrostatic global IFS/ARPEGE: model formulation and testing. Technical Memorandum, No. 594, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, 36 pp.Google Scholar