the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Mar 2022
AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: Description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model
Abstract. We developed a new version of the Alfred Wegener Institute Climate Model (AWI-CM3), which has higher skills in representing the observed climatology and better computational efficiency than its predecessors. Its ocean component FESOM2 has the multi-resolution functionality typical for unstructured-mesh models while still featuring a scalability and efficiency similar to regular-grid models. The atmospheric component OpenIFS (CY43R3) enables the use of latest developments in the numerical weather prediction community in climate sciences. In this paper we describe the coupling of the model components and evaluate the model performance on a variable resolution (25–125 km) ocean mesh and a 61 km atmosphere grid, which serves as a reference and starting point for other on-going research activities with AWI-CM3. This includes the exploration of high and variable resolution, the development of a full Earth System Model as well as the creation of a new sea ice prediction system. At this early development stage and with the given coarse to medium resolutions, the model already features above CMIP6-average skills in representing the climatology and competitive model throughput. Finally we identify remaining biases and suggest further improvements to be made to the model.
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
Notice on discussion statusThe requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13057 KB)
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13057 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Apr 2022
This manuscript describes the newly developed climate model AWI-CM3. The global coupled climate model consists of the atmosphere model OpenIFS and the ocean model FESOM2 which are coupled using the OASIS MCT4 coupling software. For the AWI-CM family the new development is mainly the replacement of the ECHAM atmosphere, which was used in AWI-CM2, by OpenIFS. The authors describe the component model and assess the performance by evaluating a set of CMIP6 DECK-like experiments in comparison with observational data sets and other CMIP6 models. This is a standard procedure and the evaluation of the model at moderate resolution shows good and above-CMIP6 standard performance. The authors also comment on computational performance and conclude that this model is quite suitable for CMIP6-like experiments. Finally, they give some hints on the performance of a higher-resolution version.
First of all, achieving such good performance in an early stage of development is a great success and I congratulate the authors. As both, the ocean and atmosphere components have potential to work even better at higher resolution and using more of the flexible grid properties of FESOM, I expect to see interesting configurations as coupled climate model and full Earth System Model in the future.
Overall, the paper covers all relevant aspects of a model documentation and the presentation is mostly clear and concise. However, as I outline below, another iteration seems to be necessary. I feel that important information is missing at some places and the evaluation could be more quantitative at other sections. Often the reader would need to consult other publications for very basic information. Also, the text needs another revision. For example, acronyms and abbreviations used either without spelling out what they stand for or with their definitions given later in the manuscript elsewhere.
I therefore recommend that the paper should be accepted for publication after taking into account the points below and including further discussions on various points. I would rate the revisions needed somewhere between “minor” and “major”.
Specific comments:
Introduction
General: I recommend to discuss where AWI-CM3 stands in comparison to other recent developments for CMIP6, but also beyond (e.g. new grid systems in MPAS, FESOM, ICON, improved dynamical cores, etc.).
Ln 16ff: the reader may not be familiar with the differences between AWI-CM and AWI-ESM models. This should be briefly explained.
Ln 22: be more specific of which range of resolution you are talking about.
Section 2
Ln 56 ff and figure 1: are WAM and H-TESSEL actually used here? Later you say that another hydrology model (mHM) shall be introduced later. The description of the atmosphere model should also include some information how land processes are treated.
Ln 76: what is the vertical lay-out in the atmosphere, which coordinate is used, how is the stratosphere resolved?
Ln 82ff: give some more details on FESOM2: e.g. physical paramterizations, like vertical mixing or eddy-induced (GM) mixing
Ln 87: a few words more about the sea-ice model, what kind of dynamics and thermodynamics are used in FESIM, how is it coupled to FESOM?
Ln 91: what is the vertical distribution of the levels, how is the mixed layer resolved?
Ln 113: see above
Section 3
Ln 144ff and Table 1: In the introduction you quote Renault et al (2016) and say that “local energy transfer” is important. Why didn’t you include then the coupling of ocean surface currents for the calculation of the wind stresses?
Ln 157: I don’t understand what “converged solution” means here
Section 4
Ln 175: How is the initial state of the ocean defined? Did you run ocean stand-alone simulations before coupling or start with climatology (which)? From Fig3, I assume it is PHC, but you should describe it in the text.
Fig 3: Define PHC
Line 197: define KPP
Ln 214: As your models runs at above 60SYPD, why don’t you provide a control run of decent length (I think CMIP6 asks for 500 years). This would allow you to asses aspects of low-frequency variability (e.g. AMOC, AMV, sea ice extent).
Fig. 4: “Mean absolute error…” aren’t all these “relative” errors?
Ln 221ff: the Reichler indices are fine, but I would like to see at least a few vertical plots for the atmosphere, e.g. zonal averages of zonal winds and temperature to see how the models performs in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere.
Ln 248, Figure 5: include an estimate from observations, e.g. sea-ice extent
Ln 275, Figures 7,8: a more quantitative evaluation could be done including RMS and mean errors.
Ln 307: what kind of work on the mixing schemes would help?
Ln 315: are there plans to combine the Langmuir-associated mixing with WAM, as in CESM2 (see Danabasoglu et al., JAMES, 2020).
Ln 320: any idea what causes the strong warm bias in the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre?
Ln 329 ff: The section on variability could be extended a bit. At least some spatial regressions of ENSO could be included. ENSO is not the only mode of variability; several recent papers on CMIP6 models (e.g., Voldoire et al., 2019; Danabasoglu et al., 2020) mhave included, for example MJO, which is quite revealing for the atmosphere.
Ln 379: here as well, I would expect a little bit more quantitative evaluation and putting these results into context of other models.
Ln 398: what are spurious transformations? Water masses?
Ln 427, 432: I feel that Scafetta et al is not the best reference here. More original papers are probably Sherwood et al (Rev. Geophys. 2020) and Meehl et al. 2020.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Apr 2022
This manuscript describes the newly developed climate model AWI-CM3. The global coupled climate model consists of the atmosphere model OpenIFS and the ocean model FESOM2 which are coupled using the OASIS MCT4 coupling software. For the AWI-CM family the new development is mainly the replacement of the ECHAM atmosphere, which was used in AWI-CM2, by OpenIFS. The authors describe the component model and assess the performance by evaluating a set of CMIP6 DECK-like experiments in comparison with observational data sets and other CMIP6 models. This is a standard procedure and the evaluation of the model at moderate resolution shows good and above-CMIP6 standard performance. The authors also comment on computational performance and conclude that this model is quite suitable for CMIP6-like experiments. Finally, they give some hints on the performance of a higher-resolution version.
First of all, achieving such good performance in an early stage of development is a great success and I congratulate the authors. As both, the ocean and atmosphere components have potential to work even better at higher resolution and using more of the flexible grid properties of FESOM, I expect to see interesting configurations as coupled climate model and full Earth System Model in the future.
Overall, the paper covers all relevant aspects of a model documentation and the presentation is mostly clear and concise. However, as I outline below, another iteration seems to be necessary. I feel that important information is missing at some places and the evaluation could be more quantitative at other sections. Often the reader would need to consult other publications for very basic information. Also, the text needs another revision. For example, acronyms and abbreviations used either without spelling out what they stand for or with their definitions given later in the manuscript elsewhere.
I therefore recommend that the paper should be accepted for publication after taking into account the points below and including further discussions on various points. I would rate the revisions needed somewhere between “minor” and “major”.
Specific comments:
Introduction
General: I recommend to discuss where AWI-CM3 stands in comparison to other recent developments for CMIP6, but also beyond (e.g. new grid systems in MPAS, FESOM, ICON, improved dynamical cores, etc.).
Ln 16ff: the reader may not be familiar with the differences between AWI-CM and AWI-ESM models. This should be briefly explained.
Ln 22: be more specific of which range of resolution you are talking about.
Section 2
Ln 56 ff and figure 1: are WAM and H-TESSEL actually used here? Later you say that another hydrology model (mHM) shall be introduced later. The description of the atmosphere model should also include some information how land processes are treated.
Ln 76: what is the vertical lay-out in the atmosphere, which coordinate is used, how is the stratosphere resolved?
Ln 82ff: give some more details on FESOM2: e.g. physical paramterizations, like vertical mixing or eddy-induced (GM) mixing
Ln 87: a few words more about the sea-ice model, what kind of dynamics and thermodynamics are used in FESIM, how is it coupled to FESOM?
Ln 91: what is the vertical distribution of the levels, how is the mixed layer resolved?
Ln 113: see above
Section 3
Ln 144ff and Table 1: In the introduction you quote Renault et al (2016) and say that “local energy transfer” is important. Why didn’t you include then the coupling of ocean surface currents for the calculation of the wind stresses?
Ln 157: I don’t understand what “converged solution” means here
Section 4
Ln 175: How is the initial state of the ocean defined? Did you run ocean stand-alone simulations before coupling or start with climatology (which)? From Fig3, I assume it is PHC, but you should describe it in the text.
Fig 3: Define PHC
Line 197: define KPP
Ln 214: As your models runs at above 60SYPD, why don’t you provide a control run of decent length (I think CMIP6 asks for 500 years). This would allow you to asses aspects of low-frequency variability (e.g. AMOC, AMV, sea ice extent).
Fig. 4: “Mean absolute error…” aren’t all these “relative” errors?
Ln 221ff: the Reichler indices are fine, but I would like to see at least a few vertical plots for the atmosphere, e.g. zonal averages of zonal winds and temperature to see how the models performs in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere.
Ln 248, Figure 5: include an estimate from observations, e.g. sea-ice extent
Ln 275, Figures 7,8: a more quantitative evaluation could be done including RMS and mean errors.
Ln 307: what kind of work on the mixing schemes would help?
Ln 315: are there plans to combine the Langmuir-associated mixing with WAM, as in CESM2 (see Danabasoglu et al., JAMES, 2020).
Ln 320: any idea what causes the strong warm bias in the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre?
Ln 329 ff: The section on variability could be extended a bit. At least some spatial regressions of ENSO could be included. ENSO is not the only mode of variability; several recent papers on CMIP6 models (e.g., Voldoire et al., 2019; Danabasoglu et al., 2020) mhave included, for example MJO, which is quite revealing for the atmosphere.
Ln 379: here as well, I would expect a little bit more quantitative evaluation and putting these results into context of other models.
Ln 398: what are spurious transformations? Water masses?
Ln 427, 432: I feel that Scafetta et al is not the best reference here. More original papers are probably Sherwood et al (Rev. Geophys. 2020) and Meehl et al. 2020.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-32/egusphere-2022-32-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Streffing, 16 Jun 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 559 | 209 | 28 | 796 | 11 | 9 |
- HTML: 559
- PDF: 209
- XML: 28
- Total: 796
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Jan Streffing
Dmitry Sidorenko
Tido Semmler
Lorenzo Zampieri
Patrick Scholz
Miguel Andrés-Martínez
Nikolay Koldunov
Thomas Rackow
Joakim Kjellsson
Helge Goessling
Marylou Athanase
Qiang Wang
Jan Hegewald
Dmitry Sein
Longjiang Mu
Uwe Fladrich
Dirk Barbi
Paul Gierz
Sergey Danilov
Stephan Juricke
Gerrit Lohmann
Thomas Jung
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13057 KB) - Metadata XML