% 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{Noble:1050303,
      author       = {Noble, Phoebe and Okui, Haruka and Alexander, Joan and Ern,
                      Manfred and Hindley, Neil P. and Hoffmann, Lars and Holt,
                      Laura and van Niekerk, Annelize and Plougonven, Riwal and
                      Polichtchouk, Inna and Stephan, Claudia C. and Bramberger,
                      Martina and Corcos, Milena and Putnam, William and Kruse,
                      Christopher and Wright, Corwin J.},
      title        = {{S}tratospheric gravity waves in three high-resolution
                      models and {AIRS} satellite observations},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2026-00113},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {Advances in computational power and model development have
                      enabled the generation of global high-resolution models.
                      These new models can resolve a large proportion of gravity
                      waves (GWs) explicitly, reducing reliance on subgrid
                      parametrizations. GWs are vital components of the middle and
                      upper atmosphere, they transport energy and momentum both
                      horizontal and vertically, driving the atmospheric
                      circulation. Evaluating the realism of these resolved waves
                      is a crucial step in advancing future model development.Here
                      we provide the first global multi-model GW observational
                      comparison that accounts for the observational filter. We
                      assess the representation of stratospheric GWs in three
                      high-resolution (3–5 km horizontal resolution) global
                      free-running simulations (ICON, IFS and GEOS), for the
                      period 20th January–29th February 2020, against AIRS
                      satellite observations.Wave amplitudes are systematically
                      lower in the models than observations, consistent with
                      previous studies. GW occurrence rates are higher in all
                      models than the observations, dominated by low amplitude
                      waves in the models. During the first 10 days spatial
                      patterns of GW occurrence rate, amplitudes and momentum flux
                      agree across the models and observations but subsequently
                      they diverge. Agreement is more consistent in the northern
                      hemisphere (where orographic waves dominate) than in the
                      southern hemispheric convective regions.These results
                      benchmark the current state of high-resolution modelling and
                      demonstrate that whilst there are strengths in models'
                      ability to capture the morphology of GWs (particularly
                      orographically generated waves), there is room for
                      improvement in modelling amplitudes, occurrence rates and
                      zonal-mean flux magnitudes globally, with the largest
                      discrepancies in the tropical convective regions.},
      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)25},
      doi          = {10.5194/egusphere-2025-4878},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1050303},
}