4.6 Article

Improvements to the representation of orography in the Met Office Unified Model

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1256/qj.02.133

关键词

flow blocking; gravity-wave drag; parametrization; smoothing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three improvements to the representation of orography for use in numerical weather- and climate-prediction models are presented. The first improvement is to replace the US Navy dataset with a new digitally generated dataset as the definition of the true earth topography. There are large differences on all scales between the two datasets and these lead to large differences in the mean and subgrid-scale fields that are derived from them. The second improvement is to filter the mean and subgrid-scale orography (SSO) fields to remove grid-scale and near-grid-scale features and thus suppress forcing on scales that the model cannot treat well. The third improvement is to implement a new, simple parametrization of the effects of SSO in which the total surface pressure drag is calculated using the analytical expression for linear hydrostatic flow over a two-dimensional ridge in the absence of friction and rotation. The surface pressure drag is partitioned into gravity-wave and blocked-flow components that depend on the Froude number of the flow impinging on the SSO. The new scheme attributes about 70% of the total drag to flow blocking. These improvements have been incorporated into a new version of the Met Office Unified Model. A series of numerical weather-prediction experiments demonstrates that the introduction of the new SSO scheme is the most significant change. In particular, significant improvements to forecast skill, attributable to the SSO scheme's flow-blocking drag component, are found at low levels in the northern hemisphere and the Tropics for an extended northern hemisphere wintertime forecast trial. Furthermore, there are no significant degradations in skill at upper levels, in the southern hemisphere or for summertime trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据