the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development of a high-resolution coupled SHiELD-MOM6-LM4 – Part 2: Model overview, coupling technique, and evaluation of hydrological extremes during Hurricane Helene
Abstract. This work describes the implementation strategy and technical challenges involved in integrating the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)'s Land Model (LM4) with dynamic subgrid tiling capabilities within the atmospheric model, System for High-resolution modeling for Earth-to-Local Domains (SHiELD), capable of kilometer-scale global simulations. A key challenge addressed in this effort is coupling LM4, which was designed for implicit surface flux coupling, with SHiELD's explicit physics solver. We achieve this through a refactoring of the atmospheric physics suite and code drivers, enabling implicit land-atmosphere coupling of heat and moisture within the well established FMS coupler infrastructure. The resulting flexible architecture supports multiple model configurations from a single executable without recompilation. This extends SHiELD from an uncoupled atmospheric model, in which land processes are treated as a part of the atmospheric physics package, to a fully coupled high resolution atmosphere-ocean-land-ice model. We demonstrate the new system through a high-resolution global simulation of Hurricane Helene's landfall where the land component realistically captures the rapid soil saturation, localized runoff generation and multi-day river flooding concentration in Western North Carolina. These results validate the technical coupling strategy, unlock new forecast capabilities, and highlight the importance of interactive land-atmosphere coupling for simulating extreme weather and hydrological events.
- Preprint
(8868 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2014', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2014', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2026
reply
See attached.
Model code and software
Development of a high-resolution coupled SHiELD-MOM6-LM4 model – Part 2: Model overview, coupling technique, and evaluation of hydrological extremes during Hurricane Helene Joseph Mouallem https://zenodo.org/records/19476778
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 164 | 35 | 14 | 213 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 164
- PDF: 35
- XML: 14
- Total: 213
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The underlying technical work is decent, promising, and useful. In my view, this work concerns coupling explicit and implicit methods in surface exchange. However, I recommend a rejection (and I encourage a resubmission) as I explain below.
Fatal flaw: The manuscript presents the work in utter isolation, as if no other earth system models exist at all and as if this problem is unique to GFDL suite of models. I find that hard to believe, but even if so, should the authors want to assert that, they should say so explicitly. Without the important context of other earth system modeling activities past and present, I am not entirely sure publishing this type of work in a journal is appropriate. To me, in its current isolated state, this work contains noteworthy results, but without important scholarly context. For the work to be of relevance as to even warrant reviewers' time, I think it should offer more context.
Major flaws: Evaluation seems to be qualitiative in nature, but the authors seem to argue/assert stronger results (e.g., using the word "validate", "strong evidence" etc.). Would observations help here? I hope so. Moreover, the stability and conervation pieces are asserted, but not really shown. In a resubmission, I encourage a stronger quantiative engagement with the material at hand or being clearer about what the results imply.
Minor flaws: some typos and leftoever XXXX and inconsistent numbering/dating in text and figures --- please revise so that it is best suited for review. I would recommend a careful proofreading pass, including using autoamted tools (e.g., LLMs).
Data/code: Do you actually have the data underlying the manuscript uploaded? I could only see the code. Also, is there a specific release associated with this or is everything in the main public repositories?