the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The North American CORDEX-CMIP6 WRF evaluation run: comparing historical simulations from 25 km to convection-permitting scales
Abstract. Earth system models (ESMs) provide essential insight into large-scale climate variability and change but often lack the spatial resolution required to represent fine-scale processes critical for regional impacts and adaptation planning. To help address this gap, we present an updated high-resolution regional climate simulation for North America (NA) as part of the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX). We evaluate a new reanalysis forced NA-CORDEX simulation at 12 km resolution against observational datasets, an earlier NA-CORDEX CMIP5 simulation (25 km), and the convection-permitting CONUS-404 simulation (4 km). Through these comparisons, we assess how horizontal resolution and regional model configuration influence historical biases and extremes, with a particular focus on precipitation processes given that convection is parameterized at 12 km. Relative to previous NA-CORDEX-CMIP5 simulations, the new CMIP6-based evaluation run reduces mean biases in temperature and precipitation, improves the magnitude and timing of the diurnal precipitation cycle across North America, and substantially improves the representation of tropical cyclone structure and intensity. Notably, extreme precipitation rates are well captured at 12 km when compared to the convection-permitting simulations. While long-term convection-permitting climate simulations remain a key objective for regional modeling, the current generation of CORDEX simulations provides a practical balance between computational efficiency and physical realism for continental-scale climate assessment.
Competing interests: Jacob Stuivenvolt-Allen, Rachel McCrary, Seth McGinnis, Stefan Rahimi, and Melissa Bukovsky collaborate and work with Dr. Paul Ullrich, an editor of GMD. Other than that, we have not competing interests in the review process.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(26473 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(12237 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Jul 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1638', Silvina Solman, 19 Jun 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Silvina Solman, 19 Jun 2026
reply
The coomment is supposed to be a reviewer comment but I could not find the way of subscribing the review as such and therefore it has been posted as a public comment.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1638-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Silvina Solman, 19 Jun 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1638', Silvina Solman, 19 Jun 2026
reply
The manuscript assesses the improvements in the most updated WRF evaluation simulation for the CORDEX-NA domain compared with a previous generation simulation. It also compares the simulated results against a convection-permitting simulation available for North America. The analysis is valuable and needed, as it represents the basis for identifying strengths and limitations of the most updated WRF simulation for the NA-CORDEX domain. The manuscript is very well written and conveys a clear message. However, in some passages the narrative seems to be somewhat disorganized and disconnected. This is particularly evident when analyzing snow features and extreme precipitation. I would recommend separating the case study analysis from the climatological assessment given the different approach followed.
There is a number of general and detailed comments, listed below, that should be considered to improve the overall readability and quality of the manuscript, before publication.
General comments
- The overall objectives of the manuscript are too vague. It is mentioned that the authors pursue assessing improvements from the corresponding previous-generation simulation. On what? What phenomena or climate feature are being assessed? I recommend clarifying on what features the analysis is focused.
- I recommend restructuring the analysis and differentiate the climatological analysis from the case studies analysis. The content starting in page 8 line 240 should be moved to a new section dedicated to case studies.
- The discussion on the representation of snow seems to be written in a very different style as compared with previous sections. Please harmonize the writing style if possible.
- Revise the discussion around Figure 10. There is a Figure 10 in the manuscript but it does not contain what is discussed in the paragraph referring to it. Moreover, one figure seems to be lacking (snow features).
- The analysis focused on on case studies (TC and MCS) should include some reference to compare with. ERA5 may be too coarse but at least may provide some overall idea of the features evaluated. Particularly for the MCS, since the discussion is around the synoptic environment features, the comparison against ERA5 should be presented.
Detailed comments
- Page 2 lines 35-45: Are the physical parameterizations mentioned the actual selection used for the NA-CORDEX WRF simulation being assessed? This is not clear and needs to be clarified. As it is written, it seems that the only improvements in the WRF model are related with the physics schemes mentioned in the paragraph (which is certainly not the case). I recommend to clarify that the schemes highlighted are those used in the new simulation.
- Page 2 line 44: Who are you referring to as “our contribution” to NA-CORDEX? Who are “our”? Please clarify.
- Page 3 line 57: Add CORDEX domain after North America.
- Page 3 lines 70-73: It would be recommendable to consider that the sensitivity tests for identifying the optimal physics selection may not end up in the same choice if the tests were done with different combinations of physical parameterizations, given the strong interdependencies among physical processes and how these interdependences are treated by different combinations of parameterizations.
- Page 3 lines 75-79: The simulated period should be clearly indicated in this paragraph.
- Figure 1 is not referenced in the text.
- Page 5 – lines 142-143: Should “from July 1 through August 31” be “from June 1 through Augus 31”, to be consistent with Fig. 5 legend?
- Page 6 – line 157: NAM region has not been defined. Please clarify.
- Page 6 – line 163: Are you referring to Figure 5d for IMERGE? If this is the case, replace Fig. 5d-g by Fig. 5d and refer to Fig. 5e-g when referring to the WRF simulations.
- Page 6 – lines 163-164: I don’t see IMERGE rainfall rate being systematically smaller than WRF in Figure 5d. Can you identify where this feature is apparent?
- Page 7 - lines 173-178: Revise. It seems that some parentheses are lacking.
- Figure 7: Revise figure legend and panel titles.
- Page 8 - lines 201-205: This paragraph seems to be disconnected from the narrative. I recommend inverting the order of this and the following paragraph to ease readiness.
- Page 8 – lines 209-210: The information on how Figure 9 is organized is already in the figure legend. It is not necessary to repeat it in the text. Please remove this line.
- Page 8 - lines 214-215: Why is the seasonality of the snow cycle not possible to be evaluated against the University of Arizona SWE data? Please clarify.
- Page 8: there is no analysis based on Figure 10, but what is the expected result. Figure 10 only displays the results from the simulations with no observation. Please provide an analysis of that figure, otherwise, it should be removed.
- Page 8 – line 216: Please revise the reference to the Figure. Figure ??a is indicated.
- Page 8 –lines 216-223: Revise this paragraph. No figure is displayed related with what is discussed here. There is a reference to Figure 10b/10c-e but Figure 10 only shows the histogram of monthly precipitation. Check carefully the consistency between the text and the figures before submitting the manuscript, otherwise it is impossible to provide a comment on the analysis.
- Page 8: last paragraph: Figure 10 is referenced but referring to a different content. Please revise the list of figures included in the manuscript.
- Page 8 – Page 9 - lines 225-239: The analysis of extreme precipitation lacks a more in-depth discussion. It is written in a very disorganized way. Please re write.
- Page 9 – lines 236-237: Where is the observed histogram displayed to state that the C404 dataset closely matches station-based observational estimates? The observational-based results should be included in this figure. Otherwise, make it clear that you are just referring to referenced literature.
- Page 9 – lines 247-255: To what extent reanalysis data (ERA5) can be used to compare against simulations? The discussion focus on highlighting that the C404 results are comparable with NAC6 results, but are these realistic? Consider including ERA5 reanalysis results just to have a reference to compare with.
- Figure S4 is not referenced in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1638-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 117 | 20 | 387 | 44 | 16 | 16 |
- HTML: 250
- PDF: 117
- XML: 20
- Total: 387
- Supplement: 44
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript assesses the improvements in the most updated WRF evaluation simulation for the CORDEX-NA domain compared with a previous generation simulation. It also compares the simulated results against a convection-permitting simulation available for North America. The analysis is valuable and needed, as it represents the basis for identifying strengths and limitations of the most updated WRF simulation for the NA-CORDEX domain. The manuscript is very well written and conveys a clear message. However, in some passages the narrative seems to be somewhat disorganized and disconnected. This is particularly evident when analyzing snow features and extreme precipitation. I would recommend separating the case study analysis from the climatological assessment given the different approach followed.
There is a number of general and detailed comments, listed below, that should be considered to improve the overall readability and quality of the manuscript, before publication.
General comments
Detailed comments