% 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”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{Noble:1042586,
author = {Noble, Phoebe and Okui, Haruka and Alexander, Joan and Ern,
Manfred and Hindley, Neil and Hoffmann, Lars and Holt, Laura
and van Niekerk, Annelize and Plougonven, Riwal and
Polichtchouk, Inna and Stephan, Claudia and Bramberger,
Martina and Corcos, Milena and Wright, Corwin},
title = {{S}tratospheric {G}ravity waves in {AIRS} observations and
high-resolution models},
reportid = {FZJ-2025-02582},
year = {2025},
abstract = {Atmospheric gravity waves vary hugely in scale; with
horizontal wavelengths ranging from a few to thousands of
km. Typically, gravity waves are smaller than model
grid-size and as a result, their effects are parametrised
instead of being explicitly resolved. However, recent
computational and scientific advancements have allowed for
the development of higher resolution global-scale models.
These models have horizontal resolutions of order a few km
with around 1km vertical resolution in the stratosphere. At
such scales, it should in principle be possible to
accurately simulate the majority of GWs without relying on
parametrisation.In this work, we use data from three models
from the DYAMOND Initiative (DYnamics of the Atmospheric
general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains).
Specifically, IFS (Integrated Forecast System – produced
by ECMWF) at 4km horizontal resolution, ICON (Icosahedral
NonHydrostatic) at 5km horizontal resolution and GEOS
(Goddard Earth Observing System model) at 3km horizontal
resolution. All models are initialised with the same initial
conditions and are free running for 40 days. We then compare
the properties of resolved gravity waves with observations
from the AIRS instrument (Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder)
onboard NASA’s Aqua satellite. Importantly, we note that
the AIRS observations are limited by the ‘observational
filter’, wherein each observing system can only `see' a
limited portion of the full GW spectrum. To account for
this, an important step in this work is in resampling the
model atmospheres as though viewed by the AIRS instrument.We
compare the representation of resolved waves in the three
models and AIRS observations across 40-days in Austral
winter. We use a recently developed machine learning wave
identification method to separate gravity waves in the
dataset and determine gravity wave occurrence frequencies.
Next, we use spectral analysis to estimate gravity wave
amplitudes, wavelengths and calculate momentum fluxes and
the intermittency of gravity waves. This work provides an
essential evaluation of the accuracy of current gravity wave
modelling capabilities.},
month = {Apr},
date = {2025-04-27},
organization = {EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna
(Austria), 27 Apr 2025 - 2 May 2025},
subtyp = {Other},
cin = {ICE-4 / JSC},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)ICE-4-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
pnm = {2112 - Climate Feedbacks (POF4-211) / 5111 -
Domain-Specific Simulation $\&$ Data Life Cycle Labs (SDLs)
and Research Groups (POF4-511)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2112 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5111},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)6},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1042586},
}