Articles | Volume 15, issue 3
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Flexible Modelling Framework for the Met Office Unified Model (Flex-UM, using UM 12.0 release)
- Final revised paper (published on 09 Feb 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 12 Jul 2021)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-193', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Aug 2021
- RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2021-193', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2021
- AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-193', Penelope Maher, 16 Nov 2021
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Penelope Maher on behalf of the Authors (16 Nov 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Nov 2021) by Patrick Jöckel
AR by Penelope Maher on behalf of the Authors (22 Nov 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (23 Nov 2021) by Patrick Jöckel
AR by Penelope Maher on behalf of the Authors (24 Nov 2021)  Author's response Manuscript
The paper by Maher and Earnshaw describes a new flexible modelling framework for the UM model, Flex-UM, which is based on the same dynamical core as the Global Atmosphere configuration of the UM, GA7.0, but includes simplified physical parameterisations. The idea of Flex-UM is to provide a flexible modelling tool which allows for model set-ups of various complexity and intends to bridge the gap between simplified models and highly complex Earth system models.
The performance of Flex-UM is evaluated by two aquaplanet experiments, one with fixed SSTs and one with a slab ocean. The results are compared to Isca, an idealized model for the global circulation of terrestrial planetary atmospheres, which is built on the GFDL aquaplanet model, and to GA7.0 with sophisticated physical parameterisations.
Overall the paper is clearly written and the results are presented in a nice and concise way. My major point of criticism is related to the lack of discussion. At the moment the manuscript is limited to the pure presentation and description of the modelled climatology and the differences between the various model configurations. Even so this is a model description paper, I think it would benefit from some discussion of the underlying reasons for the differences between the models. I appreciate the authors as experienced modellers who know their model down to the smallest detail. I am convinced that they can easily come up with a few statements, e.g. on how the missing solar absorption in FlexUM impacts the simulated dynamics. After some minor modifications (for details see below) I recommend the manuscript for publication in GMD.
Regarding the comparison with ERA5: I think it is clear that zonally symmetric aquaplant models do not give the same results as ERA5, so what is the idea of comparing the idealized models to ERA5?