Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 22;14(6):e2021MS002889. doi: 10.1029/2021MS002889

Table 1.

List of Simulations

# Mechanism a Grid name b US res. (km) c SD time (hr) d Time period e
Chemistry and horizontal resolution evaluation
1 TS1 ne30 ∼111 50 January‐December
2 TS1 ne0conus30 × 8 ∼14 50 January‐December
3 TS2.1 ne30 ∼111 50 January‐December
4 TS2.1 ne0conus30 × 8 ∼14 50 January‐December
Specified dynamics sensitivity tests
5 TS2.1 ne30 ∼111 6 August‐September
6 TS2.1 ne30 ∼111 12 August‐September
7 TS2.1 ne30 ∼111 no CONUS f August‐September
8 TS2.1 ne0conus30 × 8 ∼14 6 August‐September
9 TS2.1 ne0conus30 × 8 ∼14 12 August‐September
10 TS2.1 ne0conus30 × 8 ∼14 no CONUS f August‐September
a

TS1 is the MOZART‐TS1 mechanism (Emmons et al., 2020) and TS2.1 is the MOZART‐TS2.1 mechanism (Hodzic et al., 2016; Jo et al., 2021; Schwantes et al., 2020).

b

ne30 = ∼111 km globally uniform resolution and ne0conus30 × 8 = ∼111 km global resolution with mesh refinement down to ∼14 km over the conterminous US (CONUS).

c

Average horizontal resolution over CONUS for the selected grid.

d

Specified dynamics (SD) relaxation time.

e

Months simulated in year 2013.

f

No nudging over CONUS, but a 50‐hr relaxation time everywhere else.