English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To comprehensively diagnose model capabilities in simulating atmosphericflow including the relevant microphysical processes, the main prognosticfields of the MM5 model are compared with ERA40 reanalysis data. Thisapproach allows to identify and compare meaningful features of modelparameterization schemes and to quantify model errors. Various combinationsof schemes for cumulus convection, planetary boundary layer (PBL),microphysics and radiative transfer are used in order to identify thosecombinations which produce the closest resemblance between model state andreanalysis. The spatial structure of systematic errors, both horizontal andvertical will be described and geographical regions and synoptic situationswill be identified, which are associated with pronounced systematic modeldeviations. The study focused on precipitation and humidity fields as wellas on the main thermodynamic atmospheric variables on a coarse resolutiongrid (about 80 km) over the North Atlantic - Europe region. Our resultsidentify advantages and shortcomings of the various parameterizationschemes. They also indicate that, in general, the combination of bestschemes does not result in optimal simulations of a particular variable

Estimation of the systematic error of precipitation and humidity in the MM5 model