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

Related authors

Atmospheric-river-induced precipitation in California as simulated by the regionally refined Simple Convective Resolving E3SM Atmosphere Model (SCREAM) Version 0
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Jishi Zhang, Qi Tang, and Philip Cameron-Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7029–7050, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024, 2024
Short summary
Leveraging regional mesh refinement to simulate future climate projections for California using the Simplified Convection-Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Qi Tang, Philip Cameron-smith, and Chengzhu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3687–3731, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Improving the representation of shallow cumulus convection with the simplified-higher-order-closure–mass-flux (SHOC+MF v1.0) approach
Maria J. Chinita, Mikael Witte, Marcin J. Kurowski, Joao Teixeira, Kay Suselj, Georgios Matheou, and Peter Bogenschutz
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1909–1924, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1909-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1909-2023, 2023
Short summary
Combining regional mesh refinement with vertically enhanced physics to target marine stratocumulus biases as demonstrated in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Hsiang-He Lee, Qi Tang, and Takanobu Yamaguchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 335–352, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023, 2023
Short summary
Better calibration of cloud parameterizations and subgrid effects increases the fidelity of the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P.-P., Janowiak J., Rudolf B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167, 2003.
Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., Perry, A. T., Scanza, R. A., Zender, C. S., Heavens, N. G., Maggi, V., Kok, J. F., and Otto-Bliesner, B. L.: Improved dust representation in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 541–570, 2015.
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, 2012.
Bentamy, A., Queffeulou, P., Quilfen, Y., and Katsaros, K.: Ocean surface wind fields estimated from satellite active and passive microwave instruments, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 37, 2469–2486, 1999.
Bogenschutz, P. A. and Krueger, S. K.: A simplified PDF parameterization of subgrid-scale clouds and turbulence for cloud-resolving models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 195–211, 2013a.
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.
Share