Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4878
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4878
23 Oct 2025
 | 23 Oct 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Stratospheric gravity waves in three high-resolution models and AIRS satellite observations

Phoebe Noble, Haruka Okui, Joan Alexander, Manfred Ern, Neil P. Hindley, Lars Hoffmann, Laura Holt, Annelize van Niekerk, Riwal Plougonven, Inna Polichtchouk, Claudia C. Stephan, Martina Bramberger, Milena Corcos, William Putnam, Christopher Kruse, and Corwin J. Wright

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.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Phoebe Noble, Haruka Okui, Joan Alexander, Manfred Ern, Neil P. Hindley, Lars Hoffmann, Laura Holt, Annelize van Niekerk, Riwal Plougonven, Inna Polichtchouk, Claudia C. Stephan, Martina Bramberger, Milena Corcos, William Putnam, Christopher Kruse, and Corwin J. Wright

Status: open (until 04 Dec 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Phoebe Noble, Haruka Okui, Joan Alexander, Manfred Ern, Neil P. Hindley, Lars Hoffmann, Laura Holt, Annelize van Niekerk, Riwal Plougonven, Inna Polichtchouk, Claudia C. Stephan, Martina Bramberger, Milena Corcos, William Putnam, Christopher Kruse, and Corwin J. Wright
Phoebe Noble, Haruka Okui, Joan Alexander, Manfred Ern, Neil P. Hindley, Lars Hoffmann, Laura Holt, Annelize van Niekerk, Riwal Plougonven, Inna Polichtchouk, Claudia C. Stephan, Martina Bramberger, Milena Corcos, William Putnam, Christopher Kruse, and Corwin J. Wright
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 23 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
Gravity waves are small-scale processes that drive the circulation in the middle and upper atmosphere. In this work, we assess 3 new high-resolution models against satellite data. Generally, models capture the spatial patterns and represent stratospheric northern hemisphere mountain generated waves well. However, they still underestimate amplitudes globally and struggle with the representation of southern hemispheric convective waves.
Share