Testbeds: Dynamical Core and Model Hierarchies
Testbeds: Dynamical Core and Model Hierarchies
Embedded Files
Dynamical Core Test Case Hierarchy
Dynamical Core Test Case Hierarchy
Dycore Test Case Hierarchy
Dycore Test Case Hierarchy
The idealized 3D dynamical core (dycore) and General Circulation Model (GCM) test cases define a model hierarchy with increasing complexity as displayed in the diagram to the left. When using or designing a test case, four decisions are imperative which determine the level of difficulty. In particular, the first decision defines whether the test assesses the (1) advection (AD) component in isolation, (2) irrotational (IR) motions without Coriolis forces, (3) basic (BA) 3D flows that have similarities to 2D shallow-water flows, (4) complex (CO) flow configurations, or (5) climate (CL)-like flow scenarios. The first four categories are characterized as deterministic (multi-day) test cases that might even provide analytical solutions for selected tests. The fifth category is typically used for multi-year simulations and allows the evaluation of climate statistics. The AD, IR, BA, CO, and CL categories are used to provide the hierarchical structure . The additional decision points indicated by the small colored circles determine whether the test utilizes a full-size (E) or small (S) Earth, is adiabatic (A) or configured with either (i) rainfall (R), (ii) heating (H), (iii) dry (D) idealized physics, (iv) moist idealized (M) physics, or (v) full-complexity physics (P) mechanisms. The two outermost layers define whether a flat (F) earth or an earth with idealized or realistic orography (O) is used, and optionally whether passive tracers (T) or idealized chemistry (C) processes are added for diagnostic purposes.
Google drive with a large collection of idealized dynamical core and GCM test case papers:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bqN07JJ10DbgCoU8O1uiULdRP_2Sxenh
Google drive with a large collection of idealized dynamical core and GCM test case papers:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bqN07JJ10DbgCoU8O1uiULdRP_2Sxenh
A review of the previous DCMIP Test Suites: DCMIP-2008, DCMIP-2012 & DCMIP-2016
A review of the previous DCMIP Test Suites: DCMIP-2008, DCMIP-2012 & DCMIP-2016
DCMIP-2008_dynamical_core_test_cases.pdfDCMIP-2008:
DCMIP-2008:
DCMIP-2008 assessed six test scenarios for dry dynamical cores on a full-size Earth which included:
Test 1: the steady-state test case following the description in Jablonowski-Williamson (2006) (JW06)
Test 2: the Jablonowski-Williamson (2006) baroclinic wave (JW06) test case with optional additional tracers (available via the CESM Simpler Models framework, FADIAB compset with activated analytic conditions plus the namelist setting: analytic_ic_type = 'dry_baroclinic_wave_jw2006')
Test 3: pure 3D advection test cases with prescribed winds
Test 4: the 3D extension of the Rossby-Haurwitz wave (originally developed for 2D shallow-water models)
Test 5: the 3D extension of the mountain-triggered Rossby waves (originally developed for 2D shallow-water models)
Test 6-X: Horizontally-propagating non-orographic hydrostatic gravity waves on a non-rotating Earth
DCMIP-2012_dynamical_core_test_cases.pdfDCMIP-2012:
DCMIP-2012:
DCMIP-2012 assessed five test case families for dry and idealized moist dynamical cores on a full- and small-size Earth:
Test 1-X: Pure 3D advection tests with prescribed 3D velocities as defined in Kent et al. (2014).
Test 2-X: This test case family focused on the impact of topography in irrotational flows (no Coriolis forces). It included the 'acid test' that starts from an irrotational atmosphere at rest in hydrostatic equilibrium with a constant lapse rate and an idealized mountain. The initial state is an analytical solution. In addition, mountain gravity waves over Schaer-type mountains on small planets were analyzed.
Test 3-X: Non-orographic nonhydrostatic gravity waves on a small planet.
Test 4-1-X: JW06 baroclinic wave with dry and moist configurations and added dynamic tracers which were the potential temperature (Theta) and Ertel's potential vorticity (PV) as described in Whitehead et al. (2015). Regular size and various small-Earth reduction factors were tested.
Test 5-X: Tropical cylone test case with idealized or realistic moist physics package as described in Reed and Jablonowski (2011, 2012).
DCMIP-2016_dynamical_core_test_cases.pdfDCMIP-2016: see also Ullrich et al. (2017) below
DCMIP-2016: see also Ullrich et al. (2017) below
DCMIP-2016 assessed three tier-1 test scenarios for idealized moist dynamical cores on a full- and small-size Earth. In addition, an optional tier-2 moist test case was recommended that analyzes the climatology of the flow.
Test 1: Moist variant of the Ullrich et al. (2014) (UMJS14) baroclinic wave with a Gaussian perturbation (note: different from the perturbation described in Ullrich et al., 2014) with an added terminator chemistry component defined in Lauritzen et al. (2015). This dry UMJS14 configuration is available in CESM's Simpler Models framework when using the FADIAB compset with activated analytic conditions plus the namelist setting: analytic_ic_type = 'dry_baroclinic_wave_dcmip2016'. The moist UMJS14 configuration is available in CESM's Simpler Models framework when using the FKESSLER compset which specified the namelist setting analytic_ic_type = 'moist_baroclinic_wave_dcmip2016'.
Test 2: Idealized tropical cyclone following Reed and Jablonowski (2011, 2012) but with the warm-rain Kessler physics scheme instead of large-scale condensation.
Test 3: Supercell test case following Klemp et al. (2015) on a reduced-size Earth.
Optional (tier 2 test): Moist version of the dry Held-Suarez test as described in Thatcher and Jablonowski (2016).
Dry baroclinic wave test cases: JW06 and UMJS14
Dry baroclinic wave test cases: JW06 and UMJS14
For shallow-atmosphere dynamical core designs:
For shallow-atmosphere dynamical core designs:
jablonowski_williamson_qj_06_baroclinic_wave_test.pdfJW06: Description of the dry Jablonowski-Williamson (2006) baroclinic wave test case (with smooth underlying topography).
For shallow- and deep-atmosphere dynamical core designs:
For shallow- and deep-atmosphere dynamical core designs:
ullrich_etal_qj_14_baroclinic_wave_testcase_no_topography.pdfUMJS14: Description of the dry variant of the Ullrich et. al (2014) baroclinic wave test case without topography.
Extension of the UMJS14 baroclinic wave test case: Addition of topography and moisture
Extension of the UMJS14 baroclinic wave test case: Addition of topography and moisture
Hughes and Jablonowski (2023) including a description of the warm-rain Kessler physics parameterization
Hughes and Jablonowski (2023) including a description of the warm-rain Kessler physics parameterization
hughes_jablonowski_gmd_23_bw_testcase_topography.pdfHJ23: Description of the dry and idealized moist Hughes-Jablonowski (2023) variant of the Ullrich et al. (2014) baroclinic wave test case with idealized mountain profiles and simple moisture processes (Kessler physics). Two mountain ridges serve as the triggers of the baroclinic waves.
Publications linked to DCMIP-2016
Publications linked to DCMIP-2016
reed_jablonowski_mwr_11_tc_test_case.pdfReed and Jablonowski (2011); Description of the idealized initial condition for the tropical cyclone test case used for DCMIP-2012 and DCMIP-2016.
ullrich_etal_gmd_17_DCMIP-2016_models.pdfUllrich et al. (2017): Description of the non-hydrostatic dynamical cores that participated in DCMIP-2016.
zarzycki_etal_gmd_19_DCMIP-2016_supercell_test_case.pdfZarzycki et al. (2019): Intercomparison of the DCMIP-2016 results for the supercell test case.
willson_etal_gmd_24_DCMIP-2016_tc_intercomparison.pdfWillson et al. (2024): Inercomparison of the DCMIP-2016 results for the tropical cyclone test case.
2D Advection Test Cases: Deformational Flows
2D Advection Test Cases: Deformational Flows
nair_lauritzen_jcp_10_advection_test_case.pdfNair and Lauritzen (2010): Description of deformational flows for tracer advection experiments
lauritzen_thuburn_qj_12_2D_tracer_test_mixing_correlation.pdfLauritzen and Thuburn (2012): Mixing diagnostics for interrelated tracers
lauritzen_etal_gmd_12_2D_test_suite_tracer.pdfLauritzen et al. (2012): Suggestion of a 2D tracer advection test suite
lauritzen_etal_gmd_14_2D_tracer_advection_test_intercomparison.pdfLauritzen et al. (2014): Model intercomparison based on the 2D deformational flow test suite
3D Advection Test Cases: 3D Tracer Tests, Interacting Chemistry Tracers, and Dynamic Tracers
3D Advection Test Cases: 3D Tracer Tests, Interacting Chemistry Tracers, and Dynamic Tracers
kent_etal_qj_14_DCMIP_advection_test_cases.pdfKent et al. (2014): 3D tracer advection tests
lauritzen_etal_gmd_15_terminator_chemistry_transport_schemes.pdfLauritzen et al. (2015): Terminator 'toy' chemistry test
whitehead_etal_qj_15_baroclinic_wave_PV.pdfWhitehead et al. (2015): Dynamic tracers illustrated with the transport of potential vorticity
Dry Climate-Like Test Cases and Idealized GCM Configurations
Dry Climate-Like Test Cases and Idealized GCM Configurations
held_suarez_bams_94_HS_test.pdfHeld and Suarez (1994): Idealized forcing functions for radiation and boundary layer friction for dry dycores (HS94)
williamson_etal_mwr_98_sl_eul_tropics_HSW.pdfWilliamson et al. (1998): HSW98 variant of the Held-Suarez test with a modified stratospheric relaxation temperature
polvani_kushner_grl_02_simple_GCM_forcing_stratosphere.pdfPolvani and Kushner (2002): PK02 variant of the Held-Suarez test with a modified stratospheric relaxation temperature (permanent winter in one hemisphere)
gerber_polvani_jc_09_stratosphere_troposphere_coupling_idealized.pdfGerber and Polvani (2009): Like PK02 with added gentle topography forcing
Stratospheric Age-of-Air Assessments via Tracers
Stratospheric Age-of-Air Assessments via Tracers
gupta_etal_qj_20_tracer_transport_age_of_air_dycore_intercomparison.pdfGupta et al. (2020): Idealized age-of-air assessments with various dycores including CESM.
gerber_jas_12_age_of_air_HS_Brewer_Dobson_stratosphere.pdfGerber (2012): Idealized age-of-air assessments using the Gerber and Polvani (2009) configuration
Intermediate-Complexity Moist Model Configurations: Simplified Physics & Betts-Miller-type Deep Convection
Intermediate-Complexity Moist Model Configurations: Simplified Physics & Betts-Miller-type Deep Convection
thatcher_jablonowski_gmd_16_moist_HS_test.pdfThatcher and Jablonowski (2016): Moist variant of the Held-Suarez test with the simple-physics package
reed_jablonowski_james_12_simple_physics.pdfReed and Jablonowski (2012): Description of the simple-physics package
frierson_jas_07_Betts_Miller_convection_tropics.pdfFrierson (2007): Description of the simplified Betts-Miller deep convection scheme and its sensitivity to the relative humidity and time scale parameters.
Radiative Convective Equilibrium (RCE) Configurations
Radiative Convective Equilibrium (RCE) Configurations
reed_etal_jas_15_non-rotating_RCE_CAM_aqua_planet.pdfReed et al. (2015): Nonrotating RCE experiments with CAM
reed_chavas_james_15_tc_RCE_constant_Coriolis_CAM.pdfReed and Chavas (2015): Rotating RCE experiments with CAM
wing_etal_gmd_18_RCE_model_intercomparsion.pdfWing et al. (2018): RCE Intercomparison Project
reed_etal_james_21_CESM_RCE_configuration.pdfReed et al. (2021): RCE compset in CAM
Aqua-Planet Configurations
Aqua-Planet Configurations
neale_hoskins_asl_00_aqua_planet.pdfNeale and Hoskins (2000a): Definition of the aqua-planet configuration, multiple SST configurations are suggested
neale_hoskins_asl_00b_aqua_planet_GCM_result.pdfNeale and Hoskins (2000b): Example simulation with the aqua-planet configuration
williamson_etal_ncar_12_APE_atlas.pdfWilliamson et al. (2012): The Aqua-Planet Atlas (model intercomparison, 532 pages)
medeiros_etal_james_16_aqua_planet_benchmark_simulation.pdfMedeiros et al (2016): Aqua-planet results from CESM's CAM version 5. Note that the results do not show the 'CONTROL' version of the aqua-planet, but the 'QOBS' variant.
Dissipation Processes in GCMs
Dissipation Processes in GCMs
jablonowski_williamson_springer_11_diffusion_GCMs.pdfAlmost everything you want to know about dissipation processes
Almost everything you want to know about dissipation processes
114-page book chapter on dissipation processes in GCMs:
Jablonowski, C. and D. L. Williamson (2011), The Pros and Cons of Diffusion, Filters and Fixers in Atmospheric General Circulation Models, In: Lauritzen, P. H., C. Jablonowski, M. A. Taylor and R. D. Nair (Eds.), Numerical Techniques for Global Atmospheric Models, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer, Vol. 80, 381-493, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11640-7
Page updated
Report abuse