The path to CAM6: coupled simulations with CAM5.4 and CAM5.5

Bogenschutz, Peter A.; Gettelman, Andrew; Hannay, Cecile; Larson, Vincent E.; Neale, Richard B.; Craig, Cheryl; Chen, Chih-Chieh

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-235-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-235-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-235-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 1

Model evaluation paper

|

17 Jan 2018

Model evaluation paper |

| 17 Jan 2018

The path to CAM6: coupled simulations with CAM5.4 and CAM5.5

Peter A. Bogenschutz, Andrew Gettelman, Cecile Hannay, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Cheryl Craig, and Chih-Chieh Chen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Jan 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Jul 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Executive Editor Comment on "The Path to CAM6: Coupled Simulations with CAM5.4 and CAM5.5"', Astrid Kerkweg, 12 Jul 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to Executive Editor comment', Peter Bogenschutz, 31 Oct 2017
RC1: 'Review of GMD-2017-129 by Bogenschutz', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Aug 2017
- AC2: 'Response to reviewer #1', Peter Bogenschutz, 31 Oct 2017
RC2: 'Coupled model development', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2017
- AC3: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Peter Bogenschutz, 31 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Peter Bogenschutz on behalf of the Authors (02 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Nov 2017) by Paul Ullrich

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Nov 2017)

ED: Publish as is (21 Nov 2017) by Paul Ullrich

Short summary

This paper compares results of developmental versions of a widely used climate model. The simulations only differ in the choice of how to model the sub-grid-scale physics in the atmospheric model. This work is novel because it is the first time that a particular physics option has been tested in a fully coupled climate model. Here, we demonstrate that this physics option has the ability to produce credible coupled climate simulations, with improved metrics in certain fields.