AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: Description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model

Streffing, Jan; Sidorenko, Dmitry; Semmler, Tido; Zampieri, Lorenzo; Scholz, Patrick; Andrés-Martínez, Miguel; Koldunov, Nikolay; Rackow, Thomas; Kjellsson, Joakim; Goessling, Helge; Athanase, Marylou; Wang, Qiang; Hegewald, Jan; Sein, Dmitry; Mu, Longjiang; Fladrich, Uwe; Barbi, Dirk; Gierz, Paul; Danilov, Sergey; Juricke, Stephan; Lohmann, Gerrit; Jung, Thomas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32

Preprints

09 Mar 2022

| 09 Mar 2022

AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: Description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model

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, and Thomas Jung

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.

Publisher's note: Jan Hegewald was added as co-author to this paper on 10 October 2022. They originally contributed to the preprint but were missing in the author list.

How to cite. Streffing, J., Sidorenko, D., Semmler, T., Zampieri, L., Scholz, P., Andrés-Martínez, M., Koldunov, N., Rackow, T., Kjellsson, J., Goessling, H., Athanase, M., Wang, Q., Hegewald, J., Sein, D., Mu, L., Fladrich, U., Barbi, D., Gierz, P., Danilov, S., Juricke, S., Lohmann, G., and Jung, T.: AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: Description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32, 2022.

Received: 08 Mar 2022 – Discussion started: 09 Mar 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 13057 KB)

Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (13057 KB)

Download & links

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.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Aug 2022

AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model

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 V. Sein, Longjiang Mu, Uwe Fladrich, Dirk Barbi, Paul Gierz, Sergey Danilov, Stephan Juricke, Gerrit Lohmann, and Thomas Jung

Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022

Short summary

Jan Streffing et al.

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

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-RC1
- 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
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-AC1
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
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-AC2

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

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-RC1
- 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
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-AC1
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
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-32-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Jan Streffing on behalf of the Authors (16 Jun 2022) Author's response Manuscript

EF by Polina Shvedko (22 Jun 2022) Author's tracked changes

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Jun 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (23 Jun 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Jul 2022)

ED: Publish as is (15 Jul 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

AR by Jan Streffing on behalf of the Authors (18 Jul 2022)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Aug 2022

AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model

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 V. Sein, Longjiang Mu, Uwe Fladrich, Dirk Barbi, Paul Gierz, Sergey Danilov, Stephan Juricke, Gerrit Lohmann, and Thomas Jung

Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022

Short summary

Jan Streffing et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 796 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
559	209	28	796	11	9

HTML: 559
PDF: 209
XML: 28
Total: 796
BibTeX: 11
EndNote: 9

Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Mar 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2022	138	63	10	211
Apr 2022	101	39	5	145
May 2022	77	25	4	106
Jun 2022	96	37	6	139
Jul 2022	83	23	3	109
Aug 2022	64	22	0	86
Sep 2022	0
Oct 2022	0
Nov 2022	0
Dec 2022	0
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Mar 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2022	138	63	10	211
Apr 2022	101	39	5	145
May 2022	77	25	4	106
Jun 2022	96	37	6	139
Jul 2022	83	23	3	109
Aug 2022	64	22	0	86
Sep 2022	0
Oct 2022	0
Nov 2022	0
Dec 2022	0
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 715 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 715 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 23 Mar 2023

Download

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

Short summary

We developed a new Atmosphere-Ocean coupled climate model, AWI-CM3. Our model is significantly more computationally efficient than it's predecessors AWI-CM1 and AWI-CM2. We show that the model, although cheaper to run provides similar quality results when modelling the historic period from 1850 to 2014. We identify the remaining weaknesses to outline future work. Finally we preview an improved simulation where the reduction in computational cost has be invested in higher model resolution.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0