The parametrization of drag induced by stratified flow over anisotropic orography

By J. Scinocca, N. McFarlane. 2000

206 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b6ccd18100a42de29af80bec2a12541a0d5232d8

How researchers see this paper

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

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. M. Ern
2. P. Preusse
3. M. Alexander
4. M. Mlynczak
5. M. Riese
6. J. Russell
7. Stephen D. Eckermann
8. John Gille

In Atmospheric Science

1. M. Ern
2. P. Preusse
3. Andrew Gettelman
4. R. Garcia
5. F. Sassi
6. Stephen D. Eckermann
7. M. Alexander
8. William J. Randel

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Andrew Gettelman
2. William J. Randel
3. F. Sassi
4. R. Garcia
5. T. G. Shepherd
6. Shian‐Jiann Lin
7. L. Polvani
8. L. Harris

Citations in the corpus

• Is Missing Orographic Gravity Wave Drag near 60°S the Cause of the Stratospheric Zonal Wind Biases in Chemistry–Climate Models? (2012, methodology): “Figure 5 shows the orographic and nonorographic GWD for JJA and October, which are parameterized using the schemes of Scinocca and McFarlane (2000) and Scinocca (2003), respectively.”
• The GFDL Global Atmosphere and Land Model AM4.0/LM4.0: 2. Model Description, Sensitivity Studies, and Tuning Strategies (2018, background): “Alternative approaches to anisotropic topography (e.g., Kim & Doyle, 2005; Scinocca & McFarlane, 2000) are more ad hoc.”
• An overview of the past, present and future of gravity‐wave drag parametrization for numerical climate and weather prediction models (2003, background): “…improving these and other lower-level drag and orographic specifications (e.g., Kim and Arakawa, 1995; Lott and Miller, 1997a; Gregory et al., 1998; Scinocca and McFarlane, 2000), which led to improvements in the global models’ overall forecast skill and simulation of mean sea level pressures…”
• Modification of the Gravity Wave Parameterization in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model: Motivation and Results (2017, background): “While such parameterizations exist (e.g., Scinocca and McFarlane 2000), they have not been implemented in any version of WACCM to date.”
• GRACILE: a comprehensive climatology of atmospheric gravity wave parameters based on satellite limb soundings (2017, background): “Some examples are McFarlane (1987), Lott and Miller (1997), or Scinocca and McFarlane (2000).”
• Recent developments in gravity‐wave effects in climate models and the global distribution of gravity‐wave momentum flux from observations and models (2010, methodology): “This figure is available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/qj Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) model (which uses the Scinocca and McFarlane (2000) scheme), computed using two values of G (Sigmond and Scinocca, 2010).”
• The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6) (2019, methodology): “The updated OGW scheme incorporates 114 near surface nonlinear drag processes following Scinocca and McFarlane [2000] and uses 115 a feature-based algorithm to derive forcing data based on Bacmeister et al.”
• A comparison between gravity wave momentum fluxes in observations and climate models (2013, methodology): “More sophisticated formulations for parameterizing the effects of orographic gravity waves (e.g., Lott andMiller 1997; Scinocca and McFarlane 2000) have been developed over the years.”