% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Lear:1027009,
      author       = {Lear, Emily J. and Wright, Corwin J. and Hindley, Neil P.
                      and Polichtchouk, Inna and Hoffmann, Lars},
      title        = {{C}omparing {G}ravity {W}aves in a {K}ilometer‐{S}cale
                      {R}un of the {IFS} to {AIRS} {S}atellite {O}bservations and
                      {ERA}5},
      journal      = {JGR / Atmospheres},
      volume       = {129},
      number       = {11},
      issn         = {0148-0227},
      address      = {Hoboken, NJ},
      publisher    = {Wiley},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-03577},
      pages        = {e2023JD040097},
      year         = {2024},
      abstract     = {Atmospheric gravity waves (GWs) impact the circulation and
                      variability of the atmosphere. Sub-grid scale GWs, which are
                      too small to be resolved, are parameterized in weather and
                      climate models. However, some models are now available at
                      resolutions at which these waves become resolved and it is
                      important to test whether these models do this correctly. In
                      this study, a GW resolving run of the European Center for
                      Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated
                      Forecasting System (IFS), run with a 1.4 km average grid
                      spacing (TCo7999 resolution), is compared to observations
                      from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument, on
                      NASA's Aqua satellite, to test how well the model resolves
                      GWs that AIRS can observe. In this analysis, nighttime data
                      are used from the first 10 days of November 2018 over part
                      of Asia and surrounding regions. The IFS run is resampled
                      with AIRS's observational filter using two different methods
                      for comparison. The ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis is also resampled
                      as AIRS, to allow for comparison of how the high resolution
                      IFS run resolves GWs compared to a lower resolution model
                      that uses GW drag parametrizations. Wave properties are
                      found in AIRS and the resampled models using a
                      multi-dimensional S-Transform method. Orographic GWs can be
                      seen in similar locations at similar times in all three data
                      sets. However, wave amplitudes and momentum fluxes in the
                      resampled IFS run are found to be significantly lower than
                      in the observations. This could be a result of horizontal
                      and vertical wavelengths in the IFS run being
                      underestimated.},
      cin          = {JSC},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
      pnm          = {5111 - Domain-Specific Simulation $\&$ Data Life Cycle Labs
                      (SDLs) and Research Groups (POF4-511)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5111},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001238765700001},
      doi          = {10.1029/2023JD040097},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1027009},
}