Articles | Volume 19, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3375-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3375-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
27 Apr 2026
Development and technical paper |
| 27 Apr 2026
| 27 Apr 2026
On moist ocean-atmosphere coupling mechanisms
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Arjun Sharma
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Mark A. Taylor
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Christopher Eldred
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Peter A. Bosler
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Erika L. Roesler
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Related authors
Naser Mahfouz, Hassan Beydoun, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Noel Keen, Adam C. Varble, Luca Bertagna, Peter Bogenschutz, Andrew Bradley, Matthew W. Christensen, T. Conrad Clevenger, Aaron Donahue, Jerome Fast, James Foucar, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Oksana Guba, Walter Hannah, Benjamin Hillman, Robert Jacob, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Yun Qian, Balwinder Singh, Christopher Terai, Hailong Wang, Mingxuan Wu, Kai Zhang, Andrew Gettelman, Mark Taylor, L. Ruby Leung, Peter Caldwell, and Susannah Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 15105–15120, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15105-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15105-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study assesses the aerosol effective radiative forcing in a global cloud-resolving atmosphere model at ultra-high resolution. We demonstrate that global aerosol forcing signal can be robustly reproduced across resolutions when aerosol activation processes are carefully parameterized. Further, we argue that simplified prescribed aerosol schemes will open the door for further process/mechanism studies under controlled conditions.
Oksana Guba, Mark A. Taylor, Peter A. Bosler, Christopher Eldred, and Peter H. Lauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1429–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We want to reduce errors in the moist energy budget in numerical atmospheric models. We study a few common assumptions and mechanisms that are used for the moist physics. Some mechanisms are more consistent with the underlying equations. Separately, we study how assumptions about models' thermodynamics affect the modeled energy of precipitation. We also explain how to conserve energy in the moist physics for nonhydrostatic models.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Andrew M. Bradley, Peter A. Bosler, and Oksana Guba
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6285–6310, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6285-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6285-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tracer transport in atmosphere models can be computationally expensive. We describe a flexible and efficient interpolation semi-Lagrangian method, the Islet method. It permits using up to three grids that share an element grid: a dynamics grid for computing quantities such as the wind velocity; a physics parameterizations grid; and a tracer grid. The Islet method performs well on a number of verification problems and achieves high performance in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 2.
Oscar H. Díaz-Ibarra, Samuel G. Frederick, Jeffrey H. Curtis, Zachary D'Aquino, Peter A. Bosler, Lekha Patel, Cosmin Safta, Matthew West, and Nicole Riemer
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1281–1299, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1281-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1281-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We developed TChem-atm, a new open-source tool for simulating atmospheric chemistry and aerosols. As models become more detailed, traditional methods are too slow. TChem-atm runs on both standard processors and graphics processors, making these simulations faster and more efficient. The tool provides a foundation for next-generation models that improve predictions of air quality and climate.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Mark Taylor, and Philip Cameron-Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 795–826, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-795-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-795-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We pushed a global cloud-resolving model to a novel 100 m setup over the San Francisco Bay Area using a regionally refined mesh. The model captured fine-scale air motions over complex terrain and coastal regions at large-eddy scales with comprehensive global modeling configuration, enabled by scale-aware turbulence parameterization. Performance tests demonstrated that graphics processing unit (GPU) acceleration make such high-resolution simulations feasible within practical timeframes.
Naser Mahfouz, Hassan Beydoun, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Noel Keen, Adam C. Varble, Luca Bertagna, Peter Bogenschutz, Andrew Bradley, Matthew W. Christensen, T. Conrad Clevenger, Aaron Donahue, Jerome Fast, James Foucar, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Oksana Guba, Walter Hannah, Benjamin Hillman, Robert Jacob, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Yun Qian, Balwinder Singh, Christopher Terai, Hailong Wang, Mingxuan Wu, Kai Zhang, Andrew Gettelman, Mark Taylor, L. Ruby Leung, Peter Caldwell, and Susannah Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 15105–15120, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15105-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15105-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study assesses the aerosol effective radiative forcing in a global cloud-resolving atmosphere model at ultra-high resolution. We demonstrate that global aerosol forcing signal can be robustly reproduced across resolutions when aerosol activation processes are carefully parameterized. Further, we argue that simplified prescribed aerosol schemes will open the door for further process/mechanism studies under controlled conditions.
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate simulation of tropical cyclones (TCs) is essential to understanding their behavior in a changing climate. One way this is accomplished is through model intercomparison projects, where results from multiple climate models are analyzed to provide benchmark solutions for the wider climate modeling community. This study describes and analyzes the previously developed TC test case for nine climate models in an intercomparison project, providing solutions that aid in model development.
Oksana Guba, Mark A. Taylor, Peter A. Bosler, Christopher Eldred, and Peter H. Lauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1429–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We want to reduce errors in the moist energy budget in numerical atmospheric models. We study a few common assumptions and mechanisms that are used for the moist physics. Some mechanisms are more consistent with the underlying equations. Separately, we study how assumptions about models' thermodynamics affect the modeled energy of precipitation. We also explain how to conserve energy in the moist physics for nonhydrostatic models.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Andrew M. Bradley, Peter A. Bosler, and Oksana Guba
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6285–6310, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6285-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6285-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tracer transport in atmosphere models can be computationally expensive. We describe a flexible and efficient interpolation semi-Lagrangian method, the Islet method. It permits using up to three grids that share an element grid: a dynamics grid for computing quantities such as the wind velocity; a physics parameterizations grid; and a tracer grid. The Islet method performs well on a number of verification problems and achieves high performance in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 2.
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
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Cited articles
Eldred, C., Taylor, M., and Guba, O.: Thermodynamically consistent versions of approximations used in modelling moist air, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 148, 3184–3210, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4353, 2022. a, b, c
Emanuel, K.: Atmospheric Convection, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195066302, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712152516, 1994. a
Fairall, C. W., Bradley, E. F., Rogers, D. P., Edson, J. B., and Young, G. S.: Bulk parameterization of air-sea fluxes for Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere Coupled-Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 101, 3747–3764, https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC03205, 1996. a
Feistel, R. and Hellmuth, O.: Thermodynamics of Evaporation from the Ocean Surface, Atmosphere, 14, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14030560, 2023. a
Feynman, R.: The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Chapter 1 Atoms in Motion, https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html (last access: 2 April 2026), 1963. a
Golaz, J.-C., Larson, V. E., and Cotton, W. R.: A PDF-Based Model for Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Method and Model Description, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 3540–3551, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<3540:APBMFB>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a
Golaz, J.-C., Caldwell, P. M., Roekel, L. P. V., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q., Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-Davis, X. S., Bader, D. C., Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M. A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Fyke, J. G., Griffin, B. M., Hannay, C., Harrop, B. E., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N., Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li, H.-Y., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P.-L., Mahajan, S., Maltrud, M. E., Mametjanov, A., McClean, J. L., McCoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S. F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Eyre, J. J. R., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D., Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X., Singh, B., Tang, J., Taylor, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Turner, A. K., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N., Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Yoon, J.-H., Zelinka, M. D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM coupled model version 1: Overview and evaluation at standard resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001603, 2019. a, b, c, d
Golaz, J.-C., Van Roekel, L. P., Zheng, X., Roberts, A. F., Wolfe, J. D., Lin, W., Bradley, A. M., Tang, Q., Maltrud, M. E., Forsyth, R. M., Zhang, C., Zhou, T., Zhang, K., Zender, C. S., Wu, M., Wang, H., Turner, A. K., Singh, B., Richter, J. H., Qin, Y., Petersen, M. R., Mametjanov, A., Ma, P.-L., Larson, V. E., Krishna, J., Keen, N. D., Jeffery, N., Hunke, E. C., Hannah, W. M., Guba, O., Griffin, B. M., Feng, Y., Engwirda, D., Di Vittorio, A. V., Dang, C., Conlon, L. M., Chen, C.-C.-J., Brunke, M. A., Bisht, G., Benedict, J. J., Asay-Davis, X. S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Zeng, X., Xie, S., Wolfram, P. J., Vo, T., Veneziani, M., Tesfa, T. K., Sreepathi, S., Salinger, A. G., Reeves Eyre, J. E. J., Prather, M. J., Mahajan, S., Li, Q., Jones, P. W., Jacob, R. L., Huebler, G. W., Huang, X., Hillman, B. R., Harrop, B. E., Foucar, J. G., Fang, Y., Comeau, D. S., Caldwell, P. M., Bartoletti, T., Balaguru, K., Taylor, M. A., McCoy, R. B., Leung, L. R., and Bader, D. C.: The DOE E3SM Model Version 2: Overview of the Physical Model and Initial Model Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2022MS003156, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003156, 2022. a, b, c
Guba, O. and Sharma, A.: Supplemental materials, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16858190, 2026. a
Haidvogel, D. B. and Bryan, F. O.: Ocean general circulation modeling, in: Climate system modeling, edited by: Trenberth, K. E., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521432316, 1993. a
Harrop, B. E., Pritchard, M. S., Parishani, H., Gettelman, A., Hagos, S., Lauritzen, P. H., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Pressel, K. G., and Sakaguchi, K.: “Conservation of Dry Air, Water, and Energy in CAM and Its Potential Impact on Tropical Rainfall”, J. Climate, 35, 2895–2917, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0512.1, 2022. a, b, c, d
Klemp, J. B. and Wilhelmson, R. B.: The Simulation of Three-Dimensional Convective Storm Dynamics, J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1070–1096, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035<1070:TSOTDC>2.0.CO;2, 1978. a
Lauritzen, P. H., Kevlahan, N. K.-R., Toniazzo, T., Eldred, C., Dubos, T., Gassmann, A., Larson, V. E., Jablonowski, C., Guba, O., Shipway, B., Harrop, B. E., Lemarié, F., Tailleux, R., Herrington, A. R., Large, W., Rasch, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Wan, H., Conley, A., and Bacmeister, J. T.: Reconciling and Improving Formulations for Thermodynamics and Conservation Principles in Earth System Models (ESMs), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2022MS003117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003117, 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n
Mayer, M., Haimberger, L., Edwards, J. M., and Hyder, P.: Toward Consistent Diagnostics of the Coupled Atmosphere and Ocean Energy Budgets, J. Climate, 30, 9225–9246, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0137.1, 2017. a
Morrison, H. and Gettelman, A.: A New Two-Moment Bulk Stratiform Cloud Microphysics Scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 3 (CAM3). Part I: Description and Numerical Tests, J. Climate, 21, 3642–3659, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2105.1, 2008. a
Morrison, H. and Milbrandt, J. A.: Parameterization of Cloud Microphysics Based on the Prediction of Bulk Ice Particle Properties. Part I: Scheme Description and Idealized Tests, J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 287–311, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0065.1, 2015a. a
Morrison, H. and Milbrandt, J. A.: Parameterization of cloud microphysics based on the prediction of bulk ice particle properties. Part I: Scheme description and idealized tests, J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 287–311, 2015b. a
Morrison, H., Milbrandt, J. A., Bryan, G. H., Ikeda, K., Tessendorf, S. A., and Thompson, G.: Parameterization of cloud microphysics based on the prediction of bulk ice particle properties. Part II: Case study comparisons with observations and other schemes, J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 312–339, 2015. a
Neale, R. B., Chen, C.-C., Gettelman, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Park, S., Williamson, D. L., Conley, A. J., Garcia, R., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Marsh, D., Mills, M., Smith, A. K., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Morrison, H., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. D., Iacono, M. J., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Liu, X., Rasch, P. J., and Taylor, M. A.: Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0), UCAR, https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cam/docs/description/cam5_desc.pdf (last access: 2 July 2012), 2021. a, b, c
Rasch, P. J., Xie, S., Ma, P.-L., Lin, W., Wang, H., Tang, Q., Burrows, S. M., Caldwell, P., Zhang, K., Easter, R. C., Cameron-Smith, P., Singh, B., Wan, H., Golaz, J.-C., Harrop, B. E., Roesler, E., Bacmeister, J., Larson, V. E., Evans, K. J., Qian, Y., Taylor, M., Leung, L., Zhang, Y., Brent, L., Branstetter, M., Hannay, C., Mahajan, S., Mametjanov, A., Neale, R., Richter, J. H., Yoon, J.-H., Zender, C. S., Bader, D., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Jacob, R., N.Keen, Klein, S. A., Liu, X., Salinger, A. G., and Shrivastava, M.: An Overview of the Atmospheric Component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05073.1, 2019. a, b
Ringler, T., Petersen, M., Higdon, R. L., Jacobsen, D., Jones, P. W., and Maltrud, M.: A multi-resolution approach to global ocean modeling, Ocean Model., 69, 211–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.04.010, 2013. a
Shaw, W. J.: Theory and Scaling of Lower Atmospheric Turbulence, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 63–90, ISBN 978-94-009-2069-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2069-9_4, 1990. a
Stevens, B. and Schwartz, S. E.: Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows, Surv. Geophys., 33, 779–816, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-012-9184-0, 2012. a
Taylor, P.: AIR SEA INTERACTIONS | Momentum, Heat, and Vapor Fluxes, in: Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Second Edition), edited by: North, G. R., Pyle, J., and Zhang, F., Academic Press, Oxford, 2nd edn., 129–135, ISBN 978-0-12-382225-3, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382225-3.00064-5, 2015. a
Thuburn, J.: Use of the Gibbs thermodynamic potential to express the equation of state in atmospheric models, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 1185–1196, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3020, 2017. a
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., and Kiehl, J.: Earth's Global Energy Budget, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 311–324, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1, 2009. a, b
Tu, Y., Zhou, J., Lin, S., Alshrah, M., Zhao, X., and Chen, G.: Plausible photomolecular effect leading to water evaporation exceeding the thermal limit, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 120, e2312751120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2312751120, 2023. a
Vallis, G. K.: Atmospheric and oceanic fluid dynamics, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 9781107588417, 2017. a
Yatunin, D., Byrne, S., Kawczynski, C., Kandala, S., Bozzola, G., Sridhar, A., Shen, Zh., Jaruga, A., Sloan, J., He, J., Huang, D. Z., Barra, V., Chew, R., Boral, A., Chen, Y.-F., Knoth, O., Ullrich, P., Mbengue, C., Schneider, T.: The Climate Modeling Alliance Atmosphere Dynamical Core: Concepts, Numerics, and Scaling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 18, e2025MS005014, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025MS005014, 2026. a
Short summary
It is important for computational Earth system models to capture interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere accurately. Because of incredible complexity of these interactions, computational models contain simplifications, which may hinder the models' capabilities. Here we focus on detailed analysis of thermodynamic interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere in computational Earth system models. We also provide a framework to show how modeling these interactions can be improved.
It is important for computational Earth system models to capture interactions between the ocean...
