The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM):  the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Wu, Tongwen; Lu, Yixiong; Fang, Yongjie; Xin, Xiaoge; Li, Laurent; Li, Weiping; Jie, Weihua; Zhang, Jie; Liu, Yiming; Zhang, Li; Zhang, Fang; Zhang, Yanwu; Wu, Fanghua; Li, Jianglong; Chu, Min; Wang, Zaizhi; Shi, Xueli; Liu, Xiangwen; Wei, Min; Huang, Anning; Zhang, Yaocun; Liu, Xiaohong

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 4

Model description paper

|

24 Apr 2019

Model description paper |

| 24 Apr 2019

The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Yongjie Fang, Xiaoge Xin, Laurent Li, Weiping Li, Weihua Jie, Jie Zhang, Yiming Liu, Li Zhang, Fang Zhang, Yanwu Zhang, Fanghua Wu, Jianglong Li, Min Chu, Zaizhi Wang, Xueli Shi, Xiangwen Liu, Min Wei, Anning Huang, Yaocun Zhang, and Xiaohong Liu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 24 Apr 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Nov 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Wu et al.: The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): Main Progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2019
- AC1: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Tongwen WU, 10 Feb 2019
RC2: 'Interactive comment on “The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): Main Progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6” by Tongwen Wu et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2019
- AC2: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Tongwen WU, 10 Feb 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Tongwen WU on behalf of the Authors (10 Feb 2019) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Feb 2019) by Juan Antonio Añel

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Mar 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am almost satisfied with the authors' revision. They have honestly responded to my comments. I have only minor comments as follows:

1. L74-75 "They differ only by their horizontal resolutions": The versions of the ocean and sea ice models are also different according to Table 1.

2. L544 and L608: Omit the bullet.

3. L584 "wind velocity at 850 hPa (U850 and V850) and at 200 hPa (U200)" >> "zonal and meridional wind velocity at 850 hPa (U850 and V850) and zonal wind velocity at 200hPa (U200)"

4. L587 "precipitation and zonal wind at 850 hPa" >> "PRCP and U850"

5. L589 "geopotential height at 500 hPa" >> "Z500"

6. L592 "precipitation" >> "PRCP"

7. L658-659 "cold SST in the eastern equatorial Pacific still extends too far west in both models and a cold tongue bias exists in the equatorial Pacific": It appears that the cold tongue cold bias is worse in BCC-CSM2-MR. Please touch on the issue.

8. L670-671 "underestimated air-sea coupling strength": This is inconsistent with the fact that ENSO amplitude is overestimated in the models compared to the observation.

9. L672-673 "zonal advective feedback and thermocline feedback": It is known that the longer (4~5 year) ENSO period is related to the thermocline feedback rather than the zonal advection feedback (Guilyardi 2006).
Guilyardi, E., 2006: El Nino–mean state–seasonal cycle interactions in a multi-model ensemble. Climate Dyn., 26, 329–348.

10. Figure 13: The characteristic of ENSO irregularity is improved in BCC-CSM2-MR in comparison to BCC-CSM1.1m.

11. Plots of sea-ice extent in Fig. 14 and 15 are still inconsistent each other. In Fig. 14a (the Arctic), BCC-CSM1.1m underestimates sea-ice extent compared to the Hadley data, although it overestimates in Fig. 15a (March). In the Antarctic, sea-ice extent simulated by BCC-CSM2-MR is too small in Fig. 14b, although the bias in Fig. 15b (March) is not so serious.

12. L784-785 "The center of precipitation around Japan is also well simulated in BCC-CSM2-MR": Distribution of precipitation around Japan in Fig. 18 appears to be strange. The rain-band should develop during summer, while the simulated rain-bands active in winter.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Mar 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Mar 2019) by Juan Antonio Añel

AR by Tongwen WU on behalf of the Authors (26 Mar 2019) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (27 Mar 2019) by Juan Antonio Añel

AR by Tongwen WU on behalf of the Authors (28 Mar 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

This work presents advancements of the BCC model transition from CMIP5 to CMIP6, especially in the model resolution and its physics. Compared with BCC CMIP5 models, the BCC CMIP6 model shows significant improvements in historical simulations in many aspects including tropospheric air temperature and circulation at global and regional scales in East Asia, climate variability at different timescales (QBO, MJO, and diurnal cycle of precipitation), and the long-term trend of global air temperature.