Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 443

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sensitivity of a Simulated Squall Line to Horizontal Resolution and Parameterization of Microphysics

Open access
Bryan, George H., Morrison, Hugh·2012·Monthly Weather Review

Abstract

Idealized simulations of the 15 May 2009 squall line from the Second Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment (VORTEX2) are evaluated in this study. Four different microphysical setups are used, with either single-moment (1M) or double-moment (2M) microphysics, and either hail or graupel as the dense (rimed) ice species. Three different horizontal grid spacings are used: Δx = 4, 1, or 0.25 km (with identical vertical grids). Overall, results show that simulated squall lines are sensitive to both microphysical setup and horizontal resolution, although some quantities (i.e., surface rainfall) are more sensitive to Δx in this study. Simulations with larger Δx are slower to develop, produce more precipitation, and have higher cloud tops, all of which are attributable to larger convective cells that do not entrain midlevel air. The highest-resolution simulations have substantially more cloud water evaporation, which is partly attributable to the development of resolved turbulence. For a given Δx, the 1M simulations produce less rain, more intense cold pools, and do not have trailing stratiform precipitation at the surface, owing to excessive rainwater evaporation. The simulations with graupel as the dense ice species have unrealistically wide convective regions. Comparison against analyses from VORTEX2 data shows that the 2M setup with hail and Δx = 0.25 km produces the most realistic simulation because (i) this simulation produces realistic distributions of reflectivity associated with convective, transition, and trailing stratiform regions, (ii) the cold pool properties are reasonably close to analyses from VORTEX2, and (iii) relative humidity in the cold pool is closest to observations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/mwr-d-11-00046.1

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 443

Metadata

Authors
Bryan, G. H., & Morrison, H.
Venue
Monthly Weather Review
Published
2012-01-01
Volume
140
Issue
1
Pages
202-225
ISSN
  • 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0493
OpenAlex
W1966213179
Cited by
443
References
46
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitivity of a Simulated Squall Line to Horizontal Resolution and Parameterization of Microphysics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/mwr-d-11-00046.1
The paper
Bryan, G. H., & Morrison, H. (2012). Sensitivity of a Simulated Squall Line to Horizontal Resolution and Parameterization of Microphysics. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-11-00046.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.