Review badges
0 pre-pub reviews
1 post-pub reviews
Abstract

The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a flexible and extensible community tool used to investigate a diverse set of Earth system interactions across multiple time and space scales. This global coupled model significantly extends its predecessor, the Community Climate System Model, by incorporating new Earth system simulation capabilities. These comprise the ability to simulate biogeochemical cycles, including those of carbon and nitrogen, a variety of atmospheric chemistry options, the Greenland Ice Sheet, and an atmosphere that extends to the lower thermosphere. These and other new model capabilities are enabling investigations into a wide range of pressing scientific questions, providing new foresight into possible future climates and increasing our collective knowledge about the behavior and interactions of the Earth system. Simulations with numerous configurations of the CESM have been provided to phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and are being analyzed by the broad community of scientists. Additionally, the model source code and associated documentation are freely available to the scientific community to use for Earth system studies, making it a true community tool. This article describes this Earth system model and its various possible configurations, and highlights a number of its scientific capabilities.

Authors

Hurrell, James W.;  Holland, M. M.;  Gent, P. R.;  Ghan, S.;  Kay, Jennifer E.;  Kushner, P. J.;  Lamarque, J. -F.;  Large, W. G.;  Lawrence, D.;  Lindsay, K.;  Lipscomb, W. H.;  Long, M. C.;  Mahowald, N.;  Marsh, D. R.;  Neale, R. B.;  Rasch, P.;  Vavrus, S.;  Vertenstein, M.;  Bader, D.;  Collins, W. D.;  Hack, J. J.;  Kiehl, J.;  Marshall, S.

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 13 authors
  • 1 reviewer
Followers on Publons
Metrics
Publons score (from 1 score)
9.1
Altmetric
Web of Science Core Collection Citations
  • Abstract, title and references ● Is the aim clear? Yes ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? Yes ● Is the title informative and relevant? Yes ● Are the references: ● Relevant? Yes ● Recent? Yes ● Referenced correctly? Yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? Yes Introduction/ background ● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yes ● Is the research question clearly outlined? Yes ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? Yes Methods ● Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? Yes ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? To some Extent ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? Yes Results ● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yes ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yes ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? Yes ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? Yes ● Categories grouped appropriately? Yes ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? repetitive ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? Yes ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Yes Discussion and Conclusions ● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over interpreted? Yes ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? To some extent ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? Yes ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? Needs Future Research.

    Ongoing discussion
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.