Uncertainty in the Representation of Orography in Weather and Climate Models and Implications for Parameterized Drag
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The representation of orographic drag remains a major source of uncertainty for numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models. Its accuracy depends on contributions from both the model grid‐scale orography and the subgrid‐scale orography (SSO). Different models use different source orography data sets and different methodologies to derive these orography fields. This study presents the first comparison of orography fields across several operational global NWP models. It also investigates the sensitivity of an orographic drag parameterization to the intermodel spread in SSO fields and the resulting implications for representing the Northern Hemisphere winter circulation in a NWP model. The intermodel spread in both the grid‐scale orography and the SSO fields is found to be considerable. This is due to differences in the underlying source data set employed and in the manner in which this data set is processed (in particular how it is smoothed and interpolated) to generate the model fields. The sensitivity of parameterized orographic drag to the intermodel variability in SSO fields is shown to be considerable and dominated by the influence of two SSO fields: the standard deviation and the mean gradient of the SSO. NWP model sensitivity experiments demonstrate that the intermodel spread in these fields is of first‐order importance to the intermodel spread in parameterized surface stress, and to current known systematic model biases. The revealed importance of the SSO fields supports careful reconsideration of how these fields are generated, guiding future development of orographic drag parameterizations and reevaluation of the resolved impacts of orography on the flow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".