The subgrid‐scale orographic blocking parametrization of the GEM Model

Abstract The impact of the physical parametrization called subgrid‐scale orographic blocking, recently introduced in the physics of the Canadian Global Environmental Mutiscale (GEM) model is described. It is based on a formulation by Lott and Miller (1997) and represents the unresolved component of the drag on low‐level winds that are blocked at the flanks of mountains. The blocking term plus the gravity‐wave drag are now part of a unified parametrization of the subgrid orographic drag that became operational in the global GEM model on 11 December 2001. Results from tests made with various configurations of the model are shown, illustrating how the blocking term impacts the large‐scale flow and improves both the short‐ and the medium‐range forecasts, especially in winter. It is shown that at day 5 of the model integrations, the influence of the blocking force applied near the surface is felt by the entire tropospheric and the lower‐stratospheric circulation. A mechanism based on perturbations of the Eliassen‐Palm flux caused by the low‐level forcing is proposed to explain the vertical propagation of the signal generated by the blocking term.

[1]  H. Ólafsson,et al.  The Effect of Rotation and Surface Friction on Orographic Drag , 1997 .

[2]  J. Holton.  Geophysical fluid dynamics. , 1983, Science.

[3]  木村 竜治,et al.  J. Pedlosky: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, New York and Heidelberg, 1979, xii+624ページ, 23.5×15.5cm, $39.8. , 1981 .

[4]  T. Palmer,et al.  Alleviation of a systematic westerly bias in general circulation and numerical weather prediction models through an orographic gravity wave drag parametrization , 1986 .

[5]  Stephen D. Eckermann,et al.  An overview of the past, present and future of gravity‐wave drag parametrization for numerical climate and weather prediction models , 2003 .

[6]  A. Staniforth,et al.  The Operational CMC–MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) Model. Part I: Design Considerations and Formulation , 1998 .

[7]  B. Hoskins,et al.  Eliassen-Palm Cross Sections for the Troposphere , 1980 .

[8]  F. Lott.  Alleviation of Stationary Biases in a GCM through a Mountain Drag Parameterization Scheme and a Simple Representation of Mountain Lift Forces , 1999 .

[9]  Norman A. McFarlane,et al.  The Effect of Orographically Excited Gravity Wave Drag on the General Circulation of the Lower Stratosphere and Troposphere , 1987 .

[10]  Roger A. Pielke,et al.  Application of Terrain Height Variance Spectra to Mesoscale Modeling , 1983 .

[11]  Young-Joon Kim,et al.  Improvement of Orographic Gravity Wave Parameterization Using a Mesoscale Gravity Wave Model , 1995 .

[12]  Robert L. Street,et al.  Theory of Jets in Ideal Fluids , 1965 .

[13]  Bernard Bilodeau,et al.  Development of the 35‐km version of the Canadian regional forecast system , 1997 .

[14]  C. Charette,et al.  THE CANADIAN 3D-VAR ANALYSIS SCHEME ON MODEL VERTICAL COORDINATE , 2022 .

[15]  J. Gregory.  Middle atmosphere dynamics , 1981, Nature.

[16]  B. Larock.  Topographic Effects in Stratified Flows , 1996 .

[17]  François Lott,et al.  A new subgrid‐scale orographic drag parametrization: Its formulation and testing , 1997 .

[18]  Analytical surface pressure and drag for linear hydrostatic flow over three-dimensional elliptical mountains , 1984 .

[19]  D. G. Andrews,et al.  Planetary Waves in Horizontal and Vertical Shear: The Generalized Eliassen-Palm Relation and the Mean Zonal Acceleration , 1976 .

[20]  Ecmwf Newsletter,et al.  EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS , 2004 .

[21]  J. Wallace,et al.  Reduction of systematic forecast errors in the ECMWF model through the introduction of an envelope orography , 1983 .

[22]  N. McFarlane,et al.  The parametrization of drag induced by stratified flow over anisotropic orography , 2000 .