A new parametrization of turbulent orographic form drag

By Anton Beljaars, Andrew Brown, N. Wood. 2004

264 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Computational Mechanics, Environmental Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2281e8456d2d1883b6c835cad047ea426d00c0bf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. Andrew Gettelman
2. R. Garcia
3. Douglas E. Kinnison
4. William J. Randel
5. D. Marsh
6. J. Richter
7. Richard B. Neale
8. Anne K. Smith

In Computational Mechanics

1. R. Garcia
2. Richard B. Neale
3. Peter H. Lauritzen
4. J. Richter
5. Douglas E. Kinnison
6. D. Marsh

In Environmental Engineering

1. Andrew Gettelman

Citations in the corpus

• Climate model configurations of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (ECMWF-IFS cycle 43r1) for HighResMIP (2018, background): “…et al., 2014, 2008), clouds (Tompkins et al., 2007; Tiedtke, 1993; Forbes et al., 2011; Forbes and Tompkins, 2011), turbulent diffusion (Köhler et al., 2011), subgrid-scale orographic drag (Lott and Miller, 1997; Beljaars et al., 2004), and non-orographic gravity wave drag (Orr et al., 2010).”
• An Evaluation of the Large‐Scale Atmospheric Circulation and Its Variability in CESM2 and Other CMIP Models (2020, methodology): “FCAM6_TMS is as FCAM6* but with the new TOFD scheme of Beljaars et al. (2004) replaced by the older Turbulent Mountain Stress (TMS) parameterization of CAM5.”
• The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6) (2019, background): “The updated PBL form drag scheme is that of Beljaars et al. (2004).”