the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5.0.3)
Jason Neil Steven Cole
Knut von Salzen
Jiangnan Li
John Scinocca
David Plummer
Vivek Arora
Norman McFarlane
Michael Lazare
Murray MacKay
Diana Verseghy
Barbara Winter
Abstract. The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5) is the component of Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5) which models atmospheric processes and coupling of the atmosphere with land and lake models. Described in this paper are the main features of CanAM5, with a focus on changes relative to the last major scientific version of the model (CanAM4). These changes are mostly related to improvements in radiative transfer, clouds and aerosol parameterizations, as well as a major upgrade of the land surface and land carbon cycle models and addition of a small lake model. In addition to changes to parameterizations and models, changes in the adjustable parameters between CanAM4 and CanAM5 are documented. Finally, the mean climatology simulated by CanAM5 for present day are evaluated against observations and compared with that simulated by CanAM4. Although many of the aspects of the simulated climate are similar between CanAM4 and CanAM5, there is a reduction of precipitation and temperature biases over the Amazonian basin, global cloud fraction biases, and solar and thermal cloud radiative effects, all of which are improvements relative to observations.
-
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
(2266 KB)
-
Supplement
(1779 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2266 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1779 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Jason Neil Steven Cole et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-120', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Mar 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-120/egusphere-2023-120-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-120', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Mar 2023
This paper is a technical documentation of the atmospheric model CanAM5 that is part of the CanESM used for its CMIP6 simulations. It documented the modifications made to the previous model version CanAM4, which are for the optical properties of cloud particles and land/ocean/snow surface in the radiative calculations, cloud microphysical scheme, and surface processes. It also contains description of the spin-up of the carbon model and tuning of the CanAM5 and CanESM5. The paper then documented the rudimental performances of climatologies in clouds, radiation, zonally averaged winds and temperature, surface pressure and precipitation against observations and CanAM4. It provided some insight, although rather superficial, into the cause of the model biases. I think the paper is valuable for model developers and potential users of its simulations. I therefore recommend a minor revision. The paper is a straightforward documentation. I only have some minor comments.
1. For the benefit of the readers, please describe what is the second aerosol indirect aerosol effect that is included in Equation (2). Line 1 on page 5.
2. Line 24 on page 5 missed a period. This is the same in Line 14 on page 7.
3. The sentence in line 23 on page 8 is poorly written. Please revise.
4. Line 14 on page 9: add "net downward" after 2.5 W/m2.
5. Line 24 on page 12: "..., there is a shift to more optically thin ( < 23) in CanAM5", this is inconsistent with Figure 2 which shows less optically thin clouds with tau less than 6. It is also inconsistent with Figure 3.Â
6. First paragraph of Section 6.3 on zonal wind: there seems to be cherry picking. Â CanAM5 shows larger bias than CanAM4 not just in the Northern Hemisphere. It is also larger in the Southern Hemesphere as indicated in Figure 8. The attribution of orographic gravity wave drag parameterization (Line 6-7 in the paragraph) is thus questionable.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-120-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-120/egusphere-2023-120-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-120', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Mar 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-120/egusphere-2023-120-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-120', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Mar 2023
This paper is a technical documentation of the atmospheric model CanAM5 that is part of the CanESM used for its CMIP6 simulations. It documented the modifications made to the previous model version CanAM4, which are for the optical properties of cloud particles and land/ocean/snow surface in the radiative calculations, cloud microphysical scheme, and surface processes. It also contains description of the spin-up of the carbon model and tuning of the CanAM5 and CanESM5. The paper then documented the rudimental performances of climatologies in clouds, radiation, zonally averaged winds and temperature, surface pressure and precipitation against observations and CanAM4. It provided some insight, although rather superficial, into the cause of the model biases. I think the paper is valuable for model developers and potential users of its simulations. I therefore recommend a minor revision. The paper is a straightforward documentation. I only have some minor comments.
1. For the benefit of the readers, please describe what is the second aerosol indirect aerosol effect that is included in Equation (2). Line 1 on page 5.
2. Line 24 on page 5 missed a period. This is the same in Line 14 on page 7.
3. The sentence in line 23 on page 8 is poorly written. Please revise.
4. Line 14 on page 9: add "net downward" after 2.5 W/m2.
5. Line 24 on page 12: "..., there is a shift to more optically thin ( < 23) in CanAM5", this is inconsistent with Figure 2 which shows less optically thin clouds with tau less than 6. It is also inconsistent with Figure 3.Â
6. First paragraph of Section 6.3 on zonal wind: there seems to be cherry picking. Â CanAM5 shows larger bias than CanAM4 not just in the Northern Hemisphere. It is also larger in the Southern Hemesphere as indicated in Figure 8. The attribution of orographic gravity wave drag parameterization (Line 6-7 in the paragraph) is thus questionable.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-120-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-120/egusphere-2023-120-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jason Cole, 11 May 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Jason Neil Steven Cole et al.
Jason Neil Steven Cole et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 495 | 164 | 23 | 682 | 49 | 12 | 5 |
- HTML: 495
- PDF: 164
- XML: 23
- Total: 682
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2266 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1779 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper