Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Forward-backward scheme on the B/E grid modified to suppress lattice separation: the two versions, and any impact of the choice made?
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Numerical Analysis, NA.
2010 (English)In: Meteorology and atmospheric physics (Print), ISSN 0177-7971, E-ISSN 1436-5065, Vol. 108, no 1-2, 1-8 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Ever since its introduction to meteorology in the early 1970s, the forward-backward scheme has proven to be a very efficient method of treating gravity waves, with an added bonus of avoiding the time computational mode of the leapfrog scheme. It has been and it is used today in a number of models. When used on a square grid other than the Arakawa C grid, modification is or modifications are available to suppress the noise-generating separation of solutions on elementary C grids. Yet, in spite of a number of papers addressing the scheme and its modification, or modifications, issues remain that have either not been addressed or have been commented upon in a misleading or even in an incorrect way. Specifically, restricting ourselves to the B/E grid does it matter and if so how which of the two equations, momentum and the continuity equation, is integrated forward? Is there just one modification suppressing the separation of solutions, or have there been proposed two modification schemes? Questions made are addressed and a number of misleading statements made are recalled and commented upon. In particular, it is demonstrated that there is no added computational cost in integrating the momentum equation forward, and it is pointed out that this would seem advantageous given the height perturbations excited in the first step following a perturbation at a single height point. Yet, 48-h numerical experiments with a full-physics model show only a barely visible difference between the forecasts done using one and the other equation forward.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 108, no 1-2, 1-8 p.
National Category
Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-26844DOI: 10.1007/s00703-010-0080-1ISI: 000281106100001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77954477429OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-26844DiVA: diva2:374584
Note
QC 20101206Available from: 2010-12-06 Created: 2010-11-29 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Popovic, Jelena
By organisation
Numerical Analysis, NA
In the same journal
Meteorology and atmospheric physics (Print)
Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 30 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf