Time-Split versus Process-Split Coupling of Parameterizations and Dynamical Core

By David L. Williamson. 2002

82 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f47c5e9253ebc4c798ff64488e07a4a07f25a75e

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. Sungsu Park
2. Andrew Gettelman
3. David L. Williamson
4. Richard B. Neale
5. Chris Bretherton
6. Peter H. Lauritzen
7. J. Richter
8. Andrew J. Conley

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Sungsu Park
2. Andrew Gettelman
3. David L. Williamson
4. Richard B. Neale
5. Chris Bretherton
6. Peter H. Lauritzen
7. J. Richter
8. Andrew J. Conley

Citations in the corpus

• The Community Climate System Model: CCSM3 (2004, background): “The tendency equationscanbe integratedwith eitherprocess-splitor timesplit formulationsof the numericaldifferenceapproximations(Williamson 2002).”
• Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0) (2004, methodology): “[Williamson, 2002] compares simulations with the Eulerian spectral transform dynamical core coupled to the CCM3 parameterization suite via Process Split and Time Split approximations.”
• CAM-SE: A scalable spectral element dynamical core for the Community Atmosphere Model (2012, methodology): “This integration was made possible by the decoupling of dynamics and physics used in CAM’s process split approach (Williamson 2002), the extensive infrastructure work to support unstructured grids (Worley and Drake 2005), and the CESM tri-grid capability (Craig et al. 2011).”