Representation by two climate models of the dynamical and diabatic processes involved in the development of an explosively deepening cyclone during NAWDEX

Flack, David L. A.; Rivière, Gwendal; Musat, Ionela; Roehrig, Romain; Bony, Sandrine; Delanoë, Julien; Cazenave, Quitterie; Pelon, Jacques

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-233-2021

Articles | Volume 2, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-233-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-233-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 2, issue 1

Research article

|

22 Mar 2021

Research article |

| 22 Mar 2021

Representation by two climate models of the dynamical and diabatic processes involved in the development of an explosively deepening cyclone during NAWDEX

David L. A. Flack, Gwendal Rivière, Ionela Musat, Romain Roehrig, Sandrine Bony, Julien Delanoë, Quitterie Cazenave, and Jacques Pelon

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Mar 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Sep 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of paper “How Well do Models Represent the Development of Extra-Tropical Cyclones? Evaluation of Two General Circulation Models Against NAWDEX IOP 6 Observations” by David L. A. Flack et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Oct 2020
RC2: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2020
AC1: 'Authors' response to referees' comments', Gwendal Rivière, 10 Dec 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Gwendal Rivière on behalf of the Authors (22 Dec 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Dec 2020) by Martin Singh

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Jan 2021)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

I would be willing to review the revised paper, if the editor considers it necessary.

I am not willing to review the revised paper.

rejected

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Thank you for addressing my concerns related to the presentation of the manuscript. The message of the paper is now clearer and the length has been reduced. Therefore, the reading of the paper was more enjoyable this time.

I recommend to publish this paper after one minor comment and a few small technical corrections have been performed.

Minor comment:

In Summary, line 424 you state that "Increasing the resolution does not increase the relative contribution of diabatic heating...", which I agree, based on Fig. 7. But based on Fig. 9 (i,j,k,l), I think that ω_Q increases with resolution. Still, in lines 293 and 425 you state that your results disagree with Willison et al. (2013) and Trzeciak et al. (2016) papers, but I find the fact that the ω_Q increases with resolution being quite consistent with Willison et al (2013) and Trzeciak et al. (2016) papers.

Can you please double-check the papers by Willison and Trzeciak, if they meant the increase of diabatic processes with the resolution, or the increase of the relative contribution of diabatic processes with the resolution. I think these two aspects are slightly different things, because also the dynamical parts (adiabatic processes) can increase with the resolution (and in fact does so in your results) and partly compensate the effects of diabatic processes.

Technical corrections:

P. 8, line 180 and 182. You use the word extratropical without dash and then with dash. Please select either of them and be consistent throughout the whole manuscript.
P. 9, line 207: "The difference occurs 18h into the hindcasts". I suggest change it to "The difference occurs 18 h after the start of the initialization" or something similar.
P. 11, line 243 and 251. Add space between "Figs." and the number.
P. 13, line 257 I'd remove the word "and", and add comma.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Jan 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Jan 2021) by Martin Singh

AR by Gwendal Rivière on behalf of the Authors (28 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (12 Feb 2021) by Martin Singh

AR by Gwendal Rivière on behalf of the Authors (12 Feb 2021)

Short summary

The representation of an extratropical cyclone in simulations of two climate models is studied by comparing them to observations of the international field campaign NAWDEX. We show that the current resolution used to run climate model projections (more than 100 km) is not enough to represent the life cycle accurately, but the use of 50 km resolution is good enough. Despite these encouraging results, cloud properties (partitioning liquid and solid) are found to be far from the observations.