Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.154 IF 5.154
  • IF 5-year value: 5.697 IF 5-year
    5.697
  • CiteScore value: 5.56 CiteScore
    5.56
  • SNIP value: 1.761 SNIP 1.761
  • IPP value: 5.30 IPP 5.30
  • SJR value: 3.164 SJR 3.164
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 59 Scimago H
    index 59
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
GMD | Articles | Volume 11, issue 10
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4069–4084, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4069–4084, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Model evaluation paper 10 Oct 2018

Model evaluation paper | 10 Oct 2018

Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows

Fabien Margairaz et al.
Related subject area  
Atmospheric Sciences
Description and evaluation of the tropospheric aerosol scheme in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS-AER, cycle 45R1)
Samuel Rémy, Zak Kipling, Johannes Flemming, Olivier Boucher, Pierre Nabat, Martine Michou, Alessio Bozzo, Melanie Ades, Vincent Huijnen, Angela Benedetti, Richard Engelen, Vincent-Henri Peuch, and Jean-Jacques Morcrette
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4627–4659, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4627-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4627-2019, 2019
Short summary
Multimodel simulations of a springtime dust storm over northeastern China: implications of an evaluation of four commonly used air quality models (CMAQ v5.2.1, CAMx v6.50, CHIMERE v2017r4, and WRF-Chem v3.9.1)
Siqi Ma, Xuelei Zhang, Chao Gao, Daniel Q. Tong, Aijun Xiu, Guangjian Wu, Xinyuan Cao, Ling Huang, Hongmei Zhao, Shichun Zhang, Sergio Ibarra-Espinosa, Xin Wang, Xiaolan Li, and Mo Dan
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4603–4625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4603-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4603-2019, 2019
Short summary
tobac 1.2: towards a flexible framework for tracking and analysis of clouds in diverse datasets
Max Heikenfeld, Peter J. Marinescu, Matthew Christensen, Duncan Watson-Parris, Fabian Senf, Susan C. van den Heever, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4551–4570, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4551-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4551-2019, 2019
Short summary
Simulating lightning NO production in CMAQv5.2: performance evaluations
Daiwen Kang, Kristen M. Foley, Rohit Mathur, Shawn J. Roselle, Kenneth E. Pickering, and Dale J. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4409–4424, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4409-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4409-2019, 2019
Short summary
A Lagrangian convective transport scheme including a simulation of the time air parcels spend in updrafts (LaConTra v1.0)
Ingo Wohltmann, Ralph Lehmann, Georg A. Gottwald, Karsten Peters, Alain Protat, Valentin Louf, Christopher Williams, Wuhu Feng, and Markus Rex
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4387–4407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4387-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4387-2019, 2019
Short summary
Cited articles  
Abkar, M. and Porté-Agel, F.: Mean and turbulent kinetic energy budgets inside and above very large wind farms under conventionally-neutral condition, Renew. Energ., 70, 142–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.050, 2014. a
Albertson, J. D.: Large Eddy Simulation of Land-Atmosphere Interaction, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Davis, Hydrol. Sci., an optional note, 1996. a
Albertson, J. D. and Parlange, M. B.: Natural integration of scalar fluxes from complex terrain, Adv. Water Resour., 23, 239–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(99)00011-1, 1999. a, b
Albertson, J. D., Parlange, M. B., Katul, G. G., Chu, C.- R., Stricker, H., and Tyler, S.: Sensible Heat Flux From Arid Regions: A Simple Flux-Variance Method, Water Resour. Res., 31, 969973, https://doi.org/10.1029/94WR02978, 1995. a
Allaerts, D. and Meyers, J.: Boundary-layer development and gravity waves in conventionally neutral wind farms, J. Fluid Mechan., 814, 95–130, https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2017.11, 2017. a
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
In this project, we compare three different approaches to integrate the fluid-motion equations when applied to solve atmospheric flow dynamics. Differences between the three methods reside in accuracy as well as computational cost. The results illustrate that there is an intermediate solution that performs well in terms of computational cost while at the same time producing good enough results, as long one is not interested in the smallest turbulent scales.
In this project, we compare three different approaches to integrate the fluid-motion equations...
Citation