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

AR by Peter Bogenschutz on behalf of the Authors (29 Nov 2017)

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.