1. Introduction



















Another approach to accounting for SGS velocity variations is to explicitly model these through an assumed parametric probability distribution conditioned on resolved scales (e.g., Cakmur et al. 2004; Capps and Zender 2008; Ridley et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2016). While the parameterizations considered in these studies are probabilistic, they are still deterministic. The probability distributions employed are used to compute statistical moments across the grid box, rather than to generate a sequence of random values.
Deterministic parameterizations of subgrid-scale processes, in which a unique configuration of the resolved variables is associated with a unique value of the parameterized tendency, are only theoretically justified in the presence of a large separation between resolved and unresolved scales. In the absence of such a scale separation, a distribution of parameterized tendencies will be associated with each configuration of the resolved state, and the mathematical form of the parameterization will be stochastic [see the recent review by Berner et al. (2017)]. The data scatter around the curves corresponding to deterministic parameterizations of SGS velocity flux enhancement demonstrates the existence of such stochastic fluctuations [particularly in the CRM-based study of Zeng et al. (2002), in which the deviations clearly cannot be attributed to measurement error]. As is detailed in the review of Berner et al. (2017), the importance of explicitly accounting for stochastic variations around a deterministic parameterization has been demonstrated in a number of studies on weather, seasonal, and climate time scales. In the specific context of air–sea fluxes, Williams (2012) demonstrated that including stochastic flux fluctuations has an effect not just on model variability, but on its mean state (through rectified deepening of the simulated mixed layer). Including stochastic parameterizations into climate models also improves the representation of processes sensitive to air–sea coupling, such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Christensen et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2019), through improving the high-frequency atmospheric response to changes in sea surface temperature.
In this study, we revisit the question of SGS flux enhancement using a 9-day simulation of a convection-permitting (4-km resolution) atmospheric model on a large tropical domain (20°S–20°N, from East Africa to 180°W). By systematically coarse-graining the high-resolution simulation, we are able to analyze the relationship between “true” gridbox-averaged fluxes and the fluxes computed from the gridbox-mean vector wind (the “resolved flux”). We extend previous analyses not only by estimating the deterministic dependence of the true fluxes on resolved variables, but also by modeling the residuals around this empirical fit as a space–time random field. We emphasize the distinction between such a parameterization and the probabilistic but deterministic ones of Cakmur et al. (2004), Capps and Zender (2008), Ridley et al. (2013), and Zhang et al. (2016). The parameterization we develop samples from a random space–time field at each time step: it is explicitly stochastic.
Rather than explicitly develop a parameterization of
This study is organized as follows. A description of the high-resolution simulation used in our analysis is presented in section 2. Section 3 presents the results of the analysis. A discussion and conclusions are presented in section 4.
2. Model description
Ideally, subgrid-scale wind variability statistics would be measured from observational datasets. However, our analysis requires data of a sufficiently high spatial resolution over a large domain, for which a suitable observational dataset is not available. Instead, we use an existing high-resolution model simulation as our “truth,” produced as part of the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) “Cascade” project (Pearson et al. 2010; Love et al. 2011; Holloway et al. 2012). The Cascade project produced convection-permitting, cloud system-resolving simulations with resolutions ranging from 1.5 to 12 km over several large tropical domains using the Met Office’s Unified Model (MetUM).
For this paper, we use the Cascade 4-km resolution tropical Indo-Pacific warm pool integration. This Cascade simulation has proven useful for assessing stochastic parameterization schemes in other coarse-graining studies (Christensen 2019, manuscript submitted to Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.). For full details of the simulation, see Holloway et al. (2012). In summary, the simulation was produced by using the limited-area MetUM version 7.1 (Davies et al. 2005), covering the domain 20°S–20°N, 42°–177°E. The model is semi-Lagrangian and nonhydrostatic. The model has 70 terrain-following hybrid vertical levels, with a variable vertical resolution ranging from tens of meters in the boundary layer to 250 m in the free troposphere, and with the model top at 40 km. The time step was 30 s. Initial conditions were specified from the ECMWF operational analysis. The 4-km simulation formed one of a hierarchy of simulations. First, a 12-km parameterized convection simulation was produced over a domain 1° larger in each direction, with lateral boundary conditions relaxed to the ECMWF operational analysis. The lateral boundary conditions in the 4-km simulation were specified from the 12-km simulation, through a nudged rim of eight model grid points.
The 4-km resolution simulation is “convection permitting.” The Gregory and Rowntree (1990) convection scheme is adapted such that at large convective available potential energy (CAPE) values the convection scheme is effectively turned off, allowing the model’s dynamical equations to represent strong convective events. The convection scheme is active only for weakly unstable situations. The chosen simulation uses Smagorinsky subgrid mixing in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The simulation begins on 6 April 2009 and spans 10 days, chosen as a case study of an active Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) event. The data are stored at full resolution in space and once an hour in time. We discard the first day of simulation, because Holloway et al. (2012) demonstrated a strong spinup of the simulation over this period.
Thorough validation of the Cascade simulation has been reported by Holloway et al. (2012, 2013, 2015). The simulation is shown to produce a realistic MJO, including realistic convective organization, MJO strength, and propagation speed (Holloway et al. 2013). This is likely because the model accurately captures fundamental convective processes, including a realistic vertical heating structure (Holloway et al. 2015), realistic generation of eddy available potential energy (Holloway et al. 2013), improved profiles of moist static energy and saturation moist static energy compared to simulations with parameterized convection (Holloway et al. 2012), and a precipitation distribution that is similar to that diagnosed from Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) observations (Holloway et al. 2012). The model also has a realistic representation of vertical and zonal wind speeds compared with ECMWF operational analysis, although regions of large-scale ascent are less confined than in observations (Holloway et al. 2013).
Figure 1 presents maps of the mean and standard deviation of the wind speed at the base 4 km × 4 km resolution. Large-scale structure in the mean wind speed field across the domain is evident, with a particular contrast between high wind speeds in the equatorward flanks of the subtropical highs in the southern Indian, North Pacific, and South Pacific oceans, and relatively small wind speeds in the equatorial band and northern Indian Ocean. The wind speed standard deviation field displays more localized regions of relatively large values. Maps of the 50th and 95th percentiles of precipitation rate (Fig. 1) also show considerable spatial heterogeneity. In particular, there are large regions of the domain in which the median precipitation rate is 0 mm day−1; a precipitation rate of zero is also the 95th percentile in the Arabian Sea. When interpreting these and subsequent figures, one must remember that the simulation is of quite short duration. We expect that sampling variations will contribute to spatiotemporal variations of statistics.
(top) Mean and standard deviation of the simulated wind speed and (bottom) 50th and 95th percentiles of precipitation rate at the base 4 km × 4 km resolution of the simulation. White areas in the precipitation plots correspond to zero precipitation rates. The white boxes in the mean wind speed panel delimit the subregions considered in section 3b.
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
3. Results
In this study, we focus on the effects of spatial averaging on air–sea fluxes computed from bulk formulae [i.e., Eq. (1)]. As such, all fields we consider are assumed to be Reynolds averaged. This assumption is also consistent with the parameterized nature of the model used to produce the simulations that we analyze. For the rest of the study, we will no longer use an overbar to denote time averages.





The power-law dependence of fluxes on wind speed assumed here is a simplifying approximation. Neglecting the wind speed dependence of the exchange coefficients


(left) Estimated pdfs of the true flux
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1




The pdfs of
a. Whole domain analysis
We first study the log10 error process
As a measure of the practical importance of accounting for the difference between
1) Distribution of 
conditioned on resolved fluxes

Developing an empirical parameterization of
Statistics of the log10 error process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
These general features of the conditional dependence of









Inspection of the pdfs of
Statistics of the residual process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1













The spatial patterns of the temporal mean and standard deviation of the residuals
(top two rows) Mean and (bottom two rows) standard deviation of the residuals (left)
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
The results demonstrate that by using velocity information alone, the log10 error
2) conditioning the residual process 
on the precipitation rate

In addition to intrinsic indeterminacy due to the lack of a scale separation in the velocity field, variability of
(left) Distributions of the residual process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
The pdf of
















Quantile–quantile plots of

















Maps of the time-mean and standard deviation of the residuals
Using data from across the analysis domain, we conclude that the difference between the true and resolved fluxes can be modeled as a lognormal distributed variable, with a median that depends on the value of the resolved flux and the precipitation rate and an iqr that is to a first approximation independent of
3) Spatial and temporal correlation structure of 
and 


So far, we have considered only pointwise (marginal) statistics of the error
Plots of the temporal autocorrelation functions (acf) of
Temporal autocorrelation functions of
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Conditioning
Temporal autocorrelation functions at individual spatial locations display considerable variation around the composites shown in the upper panels of Fig. 7. The lower panels of this figure show the
Composites of the spatial correlation function of
Spatial correlation functions of
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
We now consider variations of the spatial correlation function across the domain. For each base point
From the perspective of developing stochastic parameterizations of SGS flux enhancements, in the following section we propose a statistical model that embeds the pointwise and space–time characteristics of
4) Fitting spatiotemporal covariance structures
To quantify the spatiotemporal dynamics and the spatial anisotropy observed in Figs. 7 and 8, as well as the dependence on the coarsening scales, parametric anisotropic spatiotemporal covariance structures have been fit locally for each of the two residual processes
(i) Spatiotemporal covariance model








(ii) Estimation of the local covariance structure
A moving-window framework is used to estimate the spatial variations of the covariance structure (as in Haas 1990; Kuusela and Stein 2018). More specifically, the whole domain is subdivided into smaller regions of size 400 km × 400 km. Within each window, stationarity is assumed, and the proposed covariance model Eq. (16) is fit independently to the residuals
Figures 9–11, respectively, show maps of the estimated values of the parameters
Maps of estimated covariance parameters
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Exponent parameter γ of the covariance Eq. (16) fit to (top)
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Ratio of nugget parameter δ from the fit covariance Eq. (16) over the empirical variance of the observed error process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Figure 10 shows estimates of the parameter γ that determines the smoothness of the field. This parameter also shows evidence of spatial heterogeneity. The parameter value is larger when the precipitation is not regressed out, which is another indication that the precipitation results in localized spatial structure in the error process
In Fig. 11, the ratio of the nugget δ and the variance of the error
Some regions of the maps display atypical behaviors, such as the Arabian Sea and the southeastern part of the Indian Ocean, where the correlation structure is not influenced by the precipitation field. These behaviors are expected because precipitation was almost absent in those regions during the simulation time.
(iii) Simulating the error process
To assess the quality of the statistical models we have developed for
Figure 12 shows sample time series of the “true” error process and its simulated samples at an arbitrary location for both models Eqs. (10) and (13). While both models capture the range of variations of
(left) Times series of the error process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
The simulated time series also capture the true temporal autocorrelation structure of
Temporal autocorrelation functions (acf) of
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Figure 14 depicts maps of the mean square error (MSE) between the “true” error process
(top) Total MSE, (middle) centered MSE, and (bottom) squared bias between the observed error process
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
b. Local domain analysis
Because of the relatively short duration of the simulation we are considering, some of the apparent spatial nonstationarity in the temporal and spatial autocorrelation functions may result from sampling variability. For example, an animation of the surface wind field over the simulation period (not shown) shows the migration of a strong cyclone from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal; such a circulation feature is not observed to occur elsewhere in the domain in this 9-day period. Nevertheless, the potential for spatially nonstationary structure motivates repeating the analysis of the relationships between
To examine regional variations in
Normal quantile–quantile plot for (top)
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
Spatial correlation of (top)
Citation: Monthly Weather Review 147, 5; 10.1175/MWR-D-18-0384.1
However, we also note differences in statistical features between these different regions. As previously observed, the Arabian Sea has atypical characteristics, especially in terms of spatial and temporal dynamics. The spatial correlation scales of
Given the short temporal amount of data, it is difficult to distinguish sampling variability from true spatial heterogeneity in the fields. However, the very low precipitation rates over large parts of the model domain (lower than long-term climatological values) do indicate that the limited temporal duration of the simulation is an important factor for the spatial structure.
4. Discussion and conclusions



Space–time Gaussian process models have been fit through the estimation of parametric covariances. To account for potential spatial inhomogeneity, covariances were fit in a set of overlapping moving windows. This estimation provides insights into the space–time characteristics of the residual fields: we were able to better quantify the spatial and temporal correlation ranges across coarsening scales and across the domain, and to assess the spatial anisotropy of the fields. Furthermore, this framework provides a space–time sampling distribution that could be used in future implementations.
In this study we have treated a 4-km simulation as “truth,” since observational data do not exist at a high-enough resolution over such a large spatiotemporal domain. Because of the realism of the simulation (Holloway et al. 2012, 2013, 2015), the results of this study are a good first indication of the statistics of subgrid scale fluxes. Furthermore, the relatively large precipitation rates which have the strongest deterministic relationship with the error process
Because the 4-km resolution of the model is still relatively coarse and the model equations are Reynolds averaged, this analysis does not account for those contributions to SGS velocity flux enhancement that are associated with the model’s existing gustiness parameterization (Walters et al. 2017). Since the main goal of this analysis is to demonstrate the importance of explicitly accounting for the stochasticity of the parameterization, the fact that not all SGS velocity variations are accounted for is not a critical limitation. We expect that if output from higher-resolution observations or model output were used, the magnitude of stochastic fluctuations around the deterministic parameterization would increase.
To construct an empirical parameterization of SGS flux enhancements, we have used the resolved flux and precipitation rate as deterministic predictors of the error process
Following standard practice (e.g., Williams 2001), we have neglected the dependence between variations in air density, wind speed, and air–sea concentration difference that can affect area-averaged fluxes [Eq. (1)]. Furthermore, our parameterization is based on the general resolved flux rather than specifically the surface heat flux (through the free convective scale) as in standard gustiness parameterizations (e.g., Beljaars 1995; Mahrt and Sun 1995; Williams 2001). While our approach has the advantage of not requiring an iterative calculation of fluxes, it is further removed from the basic boundary layer physics used in justifying expressions such as Eq. (5). Moreover, many choices regarding the structure of the statistical model (such as the fourth-root transformation of precipitation rate, and the number of terms K and L in the resolved flux and precipitation rate regressions) were determined through experimentation rather than systematic optimization. A more systematic and objective approach to optimizing the values of these quantities should be considered in future research. Similarly, the consideration of alternative formulations of the statistical model Eq. (18), in terms of both the predictor fields chosen and the model architecture, is an interesting direction of future study. The development of physically based parameterizations (such as that of Williams 2001) rather than empirically based ones is also a potentially important direction of research. Finally, repeating this analysis with longer time series on a larger spatial domain would allow a better determination of spatial and temporal heterogeneities in the statistics of SGS flux enhancements.
The goal of this study has been to demonstrate (via a systematic coarse-graining analysis) the fundamentally stochastic nature of the dependence of area-averaged fluxes on the resolved state and to characterize the structure of the stochastic space–time fields needed to parameterize this dependence. This analysis demonstrated the existence of spatial and temporal dependence in the stochastic parameterization and provided empirical evidence for the inclusion of such correlations in stochastic parameterization schemes (as opposed to treating this structure as a pragmatic solution to improve ensemble spread; see, e.g., Leutbecher et al. 2017). This analysis also highlighted the resolution dependency of such spatiotemporal correlations, which is not currently included in operational stochastic schemes. A future study will report on the result of implementing and testing such a stochastic sea surface flux parameterization in weather and climate models.
Acknowledgments
Data from the Cascade project is available on request from the NERC Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA). This research started in a working group supported by the Statistical and Mathematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI). AHM acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and thanks SAMSI for hosting him in the autumn of 2017. The effort of Julie Bessac is based in part on work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The research of HMC was supported by NERC Grant NE/P018238/1. We thank Aneesh Subramanian and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Data and analysis scripts are available from the authors on request.
REFERENCES
Beljaars, A. C., 1995: The parameterization of surface fluxes in large-scale models under free convection. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 121, 225–270, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712152203.
Berner, J., and Coauthors, 2017: Stochastic parameterization: Toward a new view of weather and climate models. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 565–588, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00268.1.
Cakmur, R., R. Miller, and O. Torres, 2004: Incorporating the effect of small-scale circulations upon dust emission in an atmospheric general circulation model. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D07201, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004067.
Capps, S. B., and C. S. Zender, 2008: Observed and CAM3 GCM sea surface wind speed distributions: Characterization, comparison, and bias reduction. J. Climate, 21, 6569–6585, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2374.1.
Christensen, H. M., J. Berner, D. Coleman, and T. N. Palmer, 2017: Stochastic parameterization and El Niño–Southern Oscillation. J. Climate, 30, 17–38, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0122.1.
Craig, G. C., and B. G. Cohen, 2006: Fluctuations in an equilibrium convective ensemble. Part I: Theoretical formulation. J. Atmos. Sci., 63, 1996–2004, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3709.1.
Davies, T., M. J. P. Cullen, A. J. Malcolm, M. H. Mawson, A. Staniforth, A. A. White, and N. Wood, 2005: A new dynamical core for the Met Office’s global and regional modelling of the atmosphere. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 1759–1782, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.101.
Drennan, W., 2006: On parameterizations of air-sea fluxes. Atmosphere–Ocean Interactions, Vol. 2, W. Perrie, Ed., WIT Press, 1–33.
Edson, J. B., 2008: Review of air-sea transfer processes. ECMWF Workshop on Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions, Reading, United Kingdom, ECMWF, 7–24, https://www.ecmwf.int/node/9260.
Garbe, C. S., and Coauthors, 2014: Transfer across the air-sea interface. Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions of Gases and Particles, P. Liss and M. Johnson, Eds., Springer, 55–112, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25643-1_2.
Godfrey, J., and A. Beljaars, 1991: The turbulent fluxes of buoyancy, heat and moisture at the air-sea interface at low wind speeds. J. Geophys. Res., 96, 22 043–22 048, https://doi.org/10.1029/91JC02015.
Gregory, D., and P. R. Rowntree, 1990: A mass flux convection scheme with representation of cloud ensemble characteristics and stability-dependent closure. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 1483–1506, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118<1483:AMFCSW>2.0.CO;2.
Haas, T. C., 1990: Lognormal and moving window methods of estimating acid deposition. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 85, 950–963, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10474966.
Holloway, C. E., S. J. Woolnough, and G. M. S. Lister, 2012: Precipitation distributions for explicit versus parametrized convection in a large-domain high-resolution tropical case study. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 1692–1708, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1903.
Holloway, C. E., S. J. Woolnough, and G. M. S. Lister, 2013: The effects of explicit versus parameterized convection on the MJO in a large-domain high-resolution tropical case study. Part I: Characterization of large-scale organization and propagation. J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 1342–1369, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0227.1.
Holloway, C. E., S. J. Woolnough, and G. M. S. Lister, 2015: The effects of explicit versus parameterized convection on the MJO in a large-domain high-resolution tropical case study. Part II: Processes leading to differences in MJO development. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 2719–2743, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0308.1.
Kuusela, M., and M. L. Stein, 2018: Locally stationary spatio-temporal interpolation of Argo profiling float data. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 474A, 20180400, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2018.0400.
Leutbecher, M., and Coauthors, 2017: Stochastic representations of model uncertainties at ECMWF: State of the art and future vision. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 2315–2339, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3094.
Love, B. S., A. J. Matthews, and G. M. S. Lister, 2011: The diurnal cycle of precipitation over the Maritime Continent in a high-resolution atmospheric model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 934–947, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.809.
Mahrt, L., and J. Sun, 1995: The subgrid velocity scale in the bulk aerodynamic relationship for spatially averaged scalar fluxes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 123, 3032–3041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1995)123<3032:TSVSIT>2.0.CO;2.
Ollinaho, P., and Coauthors, 2017: Towards process-level representation of model uncertainties: Stochastically perturbed parametrizations in the ECMWF ensemble. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 408–422, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2931.
Pearson, K. J., R. J. Hogan, R. P. Allan, G. M. S. Lister, and C. E. Holloway, 2010: Evaluation of the model representation of the evolution of convective systems using satellite observations of outgoing longwave radiation. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014265.
Redelsperger, J.-L., F. Guichard, and S. Mondon, 2000: A parameterization of mesoscale enhancement of surface fluxes for large-scale models. J. Climate, 13, 402–421, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<0402:APOMEO>2.0.CO;2.
Ridley, D., C. Heald, J. Pierce, and M. Evans, 2013: Toward resolution-independent dust emissions in global models: Impacts on the seasonal and spatial distribution of dust. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2873–2877, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50409.
Taylor, K. E., 2001: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183–7192, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719.
Vickers, D., and S. K. Esbensen, 1998: Subgrid surface fluxes in fair weather conditions during TOGA COARE: Observational estimates and parameterization. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 620–633, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0620:SSFIFW>2.0.CO;2.
Walters, D., and Coauthors, 2017: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-291.
Williams, A. G., 2001: A physically based parametrization for surface flux enhancement by gustiness effects in dry and precipitating convection. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 469–491, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757212.
Williams, P. D., 2012: Climatic impacts of stochastic fluctuations in air-sea fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10705, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051813.
Yang, C., H. M. Christensen, S. Corti, J. von Hardenberg, and P. Davini, 2019: The impact of stochastic physics on the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the EC-Earth coupled model. Climate Dyn., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04660-0.
Zeng, X., Q. Zhang, D. Johnson, and W.-K. Tao, 2002: Parameterization of wind gustiness for the computation of ocean surface fluxes at different spatial scales. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 2125–2133, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<2125:POWGFT>2.0.CO;2.
Zhang, K., C. Zhao, H. Wan, Y. Qian, R. C. Easter, S. J. Gahn, K. Sakaguchi, and X. Hu, 2016: Quantifying the impact of sub-grid surface wind variability on sea salt and dust emissions in CAM5. Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 607–632, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-607-2016.