A process-based evaluation of the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model (ICAR) 1.0.1

Horak, Johannes; Hofer, Marlis; Gutmann, Ethan; Gohm, Alexander; Rotach, Mathias W.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

Model evaluation paper

| Highlight paper

|

23 Mar 2021

Model evaluation paper | Highlight paper |

| 23 Mar 2021

A process-based evaluation of the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model (ICAR) 1.0.1

Johannes Horak, Marlis Hofer, Ethan Gutmann, Alexander Gohm, and Mathias W. Rotach

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Mar 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Oct 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johannes Horak, 28 Jan 2021
RC2: 'review', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Nov 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johannes Horak, 28 Jan 2021
RC3: 'Review Comments #3', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Dec 2020
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Johannes Horak, 28 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Johannes Horak on behalf of the Authors (28 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (08 Feb 2021) by Rohitash Chandra

AR by Johannes Horak on behalf of the Authors (15 Feb 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This process-based evaluation of the atmospheric model ICAR is conducted to derive recommendations to increase the likelihood of its results being correct for the right reasons. We conclude that a different diagnosis of the atmospheric background state is necessary, as well as a model top at an elevation of at least 10 km. Alternative boundary conditions at the top were not found to be effective in reducing this model top elevation. The results have wide implications for future ICAR studies.