Articles | Volume 14, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021
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

Related authors

Assessing the added value of the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research (ICAR) model for precipitation in complex topography
Johannes Horak, Marlis Hofer, Fabien Maussion, Ethan Gutmann, Alexander Gohm, and Mathias W. Rotach
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2715–2734, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2715-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2715-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
SASIEv.1: a framework for seasonal and multi-centennial Arctic sea ice emulation
Sian Megan Chilcott, Malte Meinshausen, and Dirk Notz
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4965–4982, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4965-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4965-2025, 2025
Short summary
COSP-RTTOV-1.0: flexible radiation diagnostics to enable new science applications in model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4935–4950, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4935-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4935-2025, 2025
Short summary
Assessing modifications to the Abdul-Razzak and Ghan aerosol activation parameterization (version ARG2000) to improve simulated aerosol–cloud radiative effects in the UK Met Office Unified Model (UM version 13.0)
Pratapaditya Ghosh, Katherine J. Evans, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Hyun-Gyu Kang, Salil Mahajan, Min Xu, Wei Zhang, and Hamish Gordon
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4899–4913, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4899-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4899-2025, 2025
Short summary
Correction of sea surface biases in the NEMO ocean general circulation model using neural networks
Andrea Storto, Sergey Frolov, Laura Slivinski, and Chunxue Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4789–4804, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4789-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4789-2025, 2025
Short summary
Representing lateral groundwater flow from land to river in Earth system models
Chang Liao, L. Ruby Leung, Yilin Fang, Teklu Tesfa, and Robinson Negron-Juarez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4601–4624, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4601-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4601-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Alonso-González, E., Gutmann, E., Aalstad, K., Fayad, A., and Gascoin, S.: Snowpack dynamics in the Lebanese mountains from quasi-dynamically downscaled ERA5 reanalysis updated by assimilating remotely-sensed fractional snow-covered area, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-335, in review, 2020. a
Arakawa, A. and Lamb, V. R.: Computational Design of the Basic Dynamical Processes of the UCLA General Circulation Model, in: Methods in Computational Physics: Advances in Research and Applications, edited by: Chang, J., Elsevier, Netherlands, 173–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-460817-7.50009-4, 1977. a
Arfken, G. B., Weber, H. J., and Harris, F. E.: Chapter 19 – Fourier Series, in: Mathematical Methods for Physicists (Seventh Edition), edited by: Arfken, G. B., Weber, H. J., and Harris, F. E., Academic Press, Boston, 935–962, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384654-9.00019-0, 2013. a
Barstad, I. and Grønås, S.: Dynamical structures for southwesterly airflow over southern Norway: the role of dissipation, Tellus A, 58, 2–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00152.x, 2006. a, b, c
Bernhardt, M., Härer, S., Feigl, M., and Schulz, K.: Der Wert Alpiner Forschungseinzugsgebiete im Bereich der Fernerkundung, der Schneedeckenmodellierung und der lokalen Klimamodellierung, Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 70, 515–528, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-018-0510-8, 2018. a
Download
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.
Share