the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
RCEMIP-II: Mock-Walker Simulations as Phase II of the Radiative-Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project
Abstract. The Radiative-Convective Equilibrium (RCE) Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) leveraged the simplicity of RCE to focus attention on moist convective processes and their interactions with radiation and circulation across a wide range of model types including cloud-resolving models (CRMs), general circulation models (GCMs), single column models, global cloud-resolving models, and large eddy simulations. While several robust results emerged across the spectrum of models that participated in the first phase of RCEMIP (RCEMIP-I), two points that stand out are (1) the strikingly large diversity in simulated climate states and (2) the strong imprint of convective self-aggregation on the climate state. However, the lack of consensus in the structure of self-aggregation and its response to warming is a barrier to understanding. Gaining a deeper understanding of convective aggregation and tropical climate will require reducing the degrees of freedom with which convection can vary. Therefore, we propose a Phase II of RCEMIP (RCEMIP-II) that utilizes a prescribed sinusoidal sea surface temperature (SST) pattern to provide a constraint on the structure of convection and move one critical step up the model hierarchy. This so-called "mock-Walker" configuration generates features that resemble observed tropical circulations. The specification of the mock-Walker protocol for RCEMIP-II is described, along with example results from one CRM and one GCM. RCEMIP-II will consist of five simulations covering the three mean SST's as in RCEMIP-I but imposing three different SST gradients. We also test the sensitivity to the imposed SST gradient and the domain size. Under weak SST gradients, unforced self-aggregation emerges across the entire domain but as the SST gradient increases, the convective region narrows and is confined to the warmest SSTs. At warmer mean SSTs and stronger SST gradients, low-frequency variability of the convective aggregation emerges, suggesting that simulations of at least 200 days may be needed to achieve robust equilibrium statistics in this configuration. Simulations with different domain sizes generally have similar mean statistics and convective structures, depending on the value of the SST gradient. The prescribed SST boundary condition is the only difference in the set-up between RCEMIP-II and RCEMIP-I, which enables comparison between the two. However, we also welcome participation in RCEMIP-II from models that did not participate in RCEMIP-I.
- Preprint
(36338 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-235', Juan Antonio Añel, 20 Dec 2023
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub, and stated that you will store the code in Zenodo "after publication". This is especially unfortunate. First, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Also, our policy states clearly that all the assets of any manuscript must be stored in a permanent repository with DOI at the moment of submission (not upon acceptance).Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available before the Discussions stage. I should note that, actually, your manuscript should not have been accepted in Discussions, given this lack of compliance with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, the DOI of the code (and another DOI for any dataset if necessary). Also, in the GitHub repository you link, there is no license listed. If you do not include a license, the code continues to be your property and nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-CEC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Travis O'Brien, 20 Dec 2023
Hi Juan,
I’ll note that I passed this on to the discussion phase because I see a zenodo doi (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10137266), under assets, that appears to have all the simulation code: multiple models, config files, and auxiliary files. Granted, I see what you are saying about the statement in the code and data availability section—I should have caught that and asked for a clarification—but I think the paper might otherwise be compliant with the code and data policies. Please let me know if you see otherwise.
if otherwise, I think we might need to update the instructions for both the authors and editors somehow, because I think both the authors and I tried to follow the instructions; but it seems we may have missed something.
With Kind Regards,
-Travis-
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Allison Wing, 20 Dec 2023
Dear Editor,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I apologize for the oversight and for misunderstanding the policies. We do already have a Zenodo repository with DOI that contains the post-processed data and model configuration code. We never intended to use the linked Github repository mentioned in the paper to archive codes, but rather to provide public access to the analysis codes during the discussion and review process. As it is possible that those analysis codes may change during the review process in response to reviewer comments, we didn't wish to permanently archive codes at that stage as they could become obsolete, so that is why we were going to copy them from Github to Zenodo for permanent archive once the review process was complete and the analysis codes were finalized. However I missed the part about the policy that even at submission that all codes of any type must be archived with a DOI. The codes that were in GitHub are now in a Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10414633. We will make sure to update the Code and Data Availability section in the manuscript to reflect this should we have the opportunity to submit a revised version.
Cheers,
Allison Wing
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Dec 2023
Dear authors, Dear Travis,
Many thanks for the quick reply. First, I did not see the Zenodo repository when checking the assets of this manuscript in our internal systems. Probably, it was an oversight on my side. Apologies for it. However, beyond this, having the Zenodo repository in our internal records and not public in the manuscript, does not sirve the purpose of our policy at all. The goal of the policiy is to assure the replicability of the work by any third party, independently, and without dependence on communication with third-parties, such as authors, editorial staff or the journal. People pass away, change jobs and email addresses change and become unresponsive. A Git repository is not trustable. For example, Microsoft could terminate GitHub at any moment without giving any explanations. This way, linking a Git repository in the policy can not be considered in compliance with our policy, despite the internal systems of the journal have the details of the Zenodo repository.
That said, existing a Zenodo repository makes the situation much better regarding this submission.
However, there are a couple of outstanding issues that the authors should solve: First, there is a contradictory issue in the Zenodo repository regarding the license of the code. In it, in the front page it is said that the repository is under the Creative Commons 4.0 license; however, the license file in the repository says that the license is GPLv3. Although CC4.0 and GPLv3 are considered legally compatible, it would be good that the license chosen in Zenodo is the same than the one stated in the file. In this regard, you can request Zenodo to enable this license for your repository.
Secondly, the code is written in M Language. It would be good that you indicate in your manuscript the interpreter that you use for it and its version. To comply with scientific replicability it would be good that the code can be run using a free software interpreter, such as GNU Octave. However, it could be that your code contains proprietary functions only available for proprietary interpreters (e.g. Matlab). In any of the cases you should at minimum to include the full version number and name of the interpreter you have used. Interpreters such as Matlab as known for bugs discovered a posteriori or incompatibility of code between their different versions.
Best regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Allison Wing, 21 Dec 2023
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the further clarification and apologies again for any misunderstanding.
The Zenodo repository containing the model data and configuration files needed to reproduce the results has always been publicly available and accessible, it was referenced in the Data Availability section of the submitted manuscript ("Model configuration files and a subset of the model data needed to reproduce the figures is available in a Zenodo archive at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10137266 (Wing and Silvers, 2023"), in addition to the GMD internal assets.
It was analysis code to reproduce the figures that was errantly provided via a Github link in the Code Availability section of the original submission, which we have now corrected per your request to a new Zenodo repository at at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10414633. We uploaded the GPL3 license per your suggestion and did not notice that when migrating from Github to Zenodo that it defaulted to a different license. I have updated the metadata of the Zenodo repository to the GPL3 license. Per your suggestion I have also updated the metadata of the Zenodo repository to specify that the analysis code is written in Matlab, compatible with Matlab version R2019b. I hope that this now complies with GMD code and data availability policies; we have sincerely made an effort to ensure the reproducibility and traceability of our results, even at this early stage of the publication process.
I have an updated manuscript file that corrects the Code Availability section to reference the new (second) Zenodo repository for the analysis code, and I am happy to send it if you are able to update the files in the system now, or it can be updated at the revision stage. Please let me know if there is anything else we need to do.
Thank you,
Allison Wing
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Dec 2023
Dear authors,
Many thanks for fixing these issues so quickly. It is not necessary that you send a new version of the manuscript at the moment. It is enough that you fix it in any future reviewed of accepted version.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-CEC3
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Dec 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Allison Wing, 21 Dec 2023
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Dec 2023
-
EC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Travis O'Brien, 20 Dec 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-235', Peter Bogenschutz, 17 Jan 2024
In tables A1-A5 that describe the required/optional output there are select variables that are italicized, though it is not stated what is meant by this. Perhaps it does somewhere in the text (though not that I could find), but stating this in the table caption would be very helpful for those planning on making simulation submission. Thanks!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Allison Wing, 18 Jan 2024
Thanks for pointing this out! The italicized variables are ones that are *not* standard CMIP6 output. This is stated in the first sentence of section A1 in the Appendix. It is a good idea to state this in the table captions as well, so we will make sure to do that when we revise the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Allison Wing, 18 Jan 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-235', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jan 2024
This manuscript proposes a second phase of RCEMIP, focused on “mock-Walker” simulations. These simulations include hot/cold patches, which force convection to aggregate over part of the domain, alleviating some of the issues convective aggregation adds to uniform-SST RCE simulations. As well as describing the proposed set-ups, the text also presents some initial results from mock-Walker simulations with a cloud-resolving model (CRM) and a global model (GCM).
The first phase of RCEMIP was very successful, and phase 2 is certainly warranted. I appreciate the authors’ attempt to get this going; however, I have some concerns about the proposed set-ups given here:
- the study of mock-Walker simulations is less “mature” than that of RCE simulations were going into RCEMIP-!, which leaves some nagging questions about the set-up. The authors note that for computational reasons the SST gradient will vary slightly across the models for the range of widths proposed here. While the variation is small across models (3% or less for most models), one could equally prescribe a set-up in which \Delta T is adjusted to keep the same gradient across the models. The issue is it is unclear whether it is the gradient or the absolute SSTs which matter most for the climate of mock-Walker simulations. My guess is it’s the warm pool SSTs, which would support the current proposal, but to my knowledge this has not been systematically investigated. There is some effort here to explore sensitivity to domain size etc., and it might be a good idea to do a more thorough investigation. Without this, it may be difficult to do an “intermodal comparison” as differences in model climate could be due to model physics or to differences in domain size.
- I was very surprised by the GCM set-up, which consists of zonal bands of hot and cold SSTs. I haven’t seen this set-up before, and don’t have a good feel for it. I would have expected the authors to propose uniform SSTs with hot and cold patches on the equator. Mock-Walker simulations confine the convection in x and y; here it is only confined in y. There could be similar issues with convective aggregation within the warm latitude bands as are seen in RCE simulations, and I would also expect large internal variability, which could interfere with the interpretation of model results.
For some inspiration, the authors might want to check out the following papers from Dennis Hartmann’s group:
Hartmann, D. L., and B. D. Dygert (2022), Global Radiative Convective Equilibrium With a Slab Ocean: SST Contrast, Sensitivity and Circulation, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127(12), e2021JD036,400.
Larson, K., and D. L. Hartmann (2003), Interactions among cloud, water vapor, radiation, and large-scale circulation in the tropical climate. part ii: Sensitivity to spatial gradients of sea surface temperature., Journal of Climate, 16(10), 1441–1455.
I mostly focused on the model set-ups, but also have a number of small comments/typos:
L13: SST’s -> SSTs. I also think this should be “the same three mean SSTs”. The sentence is a bit confusing because it mentions 5 simulations covering 3 mean SSTs and 3 SST gradients. I understand it after reading the paper, but for the abstract the authors might want to word things more carefully.
L14: Sentence starting “Under weak SST gradients” -> maybe a personal preference, but the commas feel misplaced in this sentence to me. I would put the first one after “domain” and delete the third one.
L20: Suggest: “two; however, we also”
L26: “Operational models” to me signals forecast models, not GCMs. Also should be “such as”
L28: Should this be “uncertainty”? This sentence also makes it seem like the tropics are the only source of bias/uncertainty in climate projections.
L30: Not sure how Held, 2005 is relevant here. I also don’t know what it means to”effectively use” an Earth System model.
L45 and afterwards: I encourage the authors to provide a bit more information about these robust responses. E.g., what is the response of deep convective clouds to warming? How is the existence of self-aggregation robust? Etc. These results are important motivations for the present paper and should be discussed in detail.
L53: is insolation the only forcing? Surely greenhouse gases also? Also, in this paragraph “sensitive”.“sensitivities” is used a lot. Suggest re-writing.
L57: “proposal” -> “propose”
L58: delete “now”
L71: I found it odd the authors wrote “compared to RCE”, implying that mock-Walker simulations are not in RCE even though they are the basis of RCEMIP-II. Maybe the authors could clarify how to think about the set-ups in relation to RCE?
L84: Suggest replacing “provided” with “described”
L90: Sentence starting “In considering”, should it be “(1) how strikingly large”…and “(2) how strong”?
L101: what does “its” refer to here? In general, I found this paragraph a little muddled with frequent use of “coupling”, “clouds” and “circulation”. Suggest streamlining.
L108: Another personal preference, but I feel writing should stand on its own, and discourage the authors’ use of bold text.
L138: I would encourage the use of LES if anyone has the resources!
L163: I would capitalize “Cartesian”
L165: Suggest: “between the maximum and minimum SST”.
L180: Why did you switch from 2\pi to 360 degrees here? (Also equation 3)
Table 1: I encourage the authors to have 5 “core” experiments (listed here) and 4 additional experiments (295/0.625,295/2.5, 305/0.625,305/2.5). It would be great if some groups ran more experiments
L198: Should this be: “there is to be no diurnal…”, to keep the tense consistent?
L228: The authors should refer to the (large) literature on the pattern effect in this paragraph, which might also provide some insight into what to expect in terms of cloud feedbacks.
L252: Have the simulations been updated, or has the model code?
Figure 3: This doesn’t look much like a Walker Circulation to me…It might be interesting to plot the overturning stream function to get a better feel for what the flow is doing.
L315: Suggest re-writing sentence starting “This suggests” (remove “doesn’t “care””).
L329: This is a good example of my concern that mock-Walker simulations are not ready for this kind of comparison. This is a required simulation, but it takes longer than 200 days (the prescribed simulation length) to reach equilibrium. Maybe in other models all simulations need longer to equilibrate.
L433: “the behavior of \Delta SST”?
L461: Should this be “SSTs”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-RC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Allison Wing, 07 Feb 2024
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. As suggested by the editor, we are providing an initial response while the discussion period is still open. The attached file contains a general response and then responses to the main concerns brought up by both you and the other other reviewer. We hope this addresses your concerns and look forward to your feedback.
Allison Wing, Levi Silvers, Kevin Reed
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2023-235', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2024
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Allison Wing, 07 Feb 2024
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. While we are still in the process of considering your review comments, we are providing an initial response while the discussion period is still open as suggested by the editor. The attached file contains a general response and then responses to the main concerns brought up by both you and the other other reviewer. We hope this addresses your concerns and look forward to your feedback.
Allison Wing, Levi Silvers, Kevin Reed
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Allison Wing, 07 Feb 2024
-
EC2: 'Editor Comment on gmd-2023-235', Travis O'Brien, 30 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2023-235/gmd-2023-235-EC2-supplement.pdf
-
EC3: 'Reply on EC2', Travis O'Brien, 30 Jan 2024
Also, I neglected to say: many thanks to the reviewers!!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-EC3 -
AC6: 'Reply on EC3', Allison Wing, 07 Feb 2024
Following your suggestion, we have posted an initial (though length) reply to the reviewer comments. Note that we uploaded the same document in our reply to each reviewer; the document contains a general response and then addresses the main concerns of each reviewer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-AC6
-
AC6: 'Reply on EC3', Allison Wing, 07 Feb 2024
-
CC2: 'Reply on EC2', Levi Silvers, 02 Feb 2024
Dear Travis,
Thank you for your comment on our paper and the reviews that have so far been received. We are in the process of preparing an initial response to the first two reviews that we will post within the next few days. We will then provide a complete response once the GMD discussion period is concluded and we have your decision/recommendation.
Thank you again for your initial thoughts on the matter.
Regards,
Levi Silvers, Allison Wing, and Kevin Reed
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-235-CC2
-
EC3: 'Reply on EC2', Travis O'Brien, 30 Jan 2024
Data sets
Code and data for RCEMIP-II: Mock-Walker Simulations as Phase II of the Radiative-Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project Allison A. Wing, Levi G. Silvers, and Kevin A. Reed https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10137266
Model code and software
SAM6.11.2 Marat Khairoutdinov http://rossby.msrc.sunysb.edu/~marat/SAM/sam6.11.2_AWing.tar.gz
CESM 2.1.3 Earth System Community Modeling Portal https://github.com/ESCOMP/CESM/releases/tag/release-cesm2.1.3
RCEMIP-II code repository Allison A. Wing https://github.com/allison-wing/RCEMIP-II
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
616 | 289 | 53 | 958 | 30 | 26 |
- HTML: 616
- PDF: 289
- XML: 53
- Total: 958
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1