Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-235-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-235-2018
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

Viewed

Total article views: 7,262 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
3,525 3,637 100 7,262 110 106
  • HTML: 3,525
  • PDF: 3,637
  • XML: 100
  • Total: 7,262
  • BibTeX: 110
  • EndNote: 106
Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jul 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jul 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 7,262 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 6,847 with geography defined and 415 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 17 Apr 2024
Download
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.