The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) has developed a coupled general circulation model (CM3) for the atmosphere, oceans, land, and sea ice. The goal of CM3 is to address emerging issues in climate change, including aerosol-cloud interactions, chemistry-climate interactions, and coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere. The model is also designed to serve as the physical system component of earth system models and models for decadal prediction in the near-term future-for example, through improved simulations in tropical land precipitation relative to earlier-generation GFDL models. This paper describes the dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component (AM3) of this model. Relative to GFDL AM2, AM3 includes new treatments of deep and shallow cumulus convection, cloud droplet activation by aerosols, subgrid variability of stratiform vertical velocities for droplet activation, and atmospheric chemistry driven by emissions with advective, convective, and turbulent transport. AM3 employs a cubed-sphere implementation of a finite-volume dynamical core and is coupled to LM3, a new land model with ecosystem dynamics and hydrology. Its horizontal resolution is approximately 200 km, and its vertical resolution ranges approximately from 70 m near the earth's surface to 1 to 1.5 km near the tropopause and 3 to 4 km in much of the stratosphere. Most basic circulation features in AM3 are simulated as realistically, or more so, as in AM2. In particular, dry biases have been reduced over South America. In coupled mode, the simulation of Arctic sea ice concentration has improved. AM3 aerosol optical depths, scattering properties, and surface clear-sky downward shortwave radiation are more realistic than in AM2. The simulation of marine stratocumulus decks remains problematic, as in AM2. The most intense 0.2% of precipitation rates occur less frequently in AM3 than observed. The last two decades of the twentieth century warm in CM3 by 0.328C relative to 1881-1920. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) and Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyses of observations show warming of 0.568 and 0.528C, respectively, over this period. CM3 includes anthropogenic cooling by aerosol-cloud interactions, and its warming by the late twentieth century is somewhat less realistic than in CM2.1, which warmed 0.668C but did not include aerosol-cloud interactions. The improved simulation of the direct aerosol effect (apparent in surface clear-sky downward radiation) in CM3 evidently acts in concert with its simulation of cloud-aerosol interactions to limit greenhouse gas warming.

In Part 2 of this two‐part paper, documentation is provided of key aspects of a version of the AM4.0/LM4.0 atmosphere/land model that will serve as a base for a new set of climate and Earth system models (CM4 and ESM4) under development at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). The quality of the simulation in AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) mode has been provided in Part 1. Part 2 provides documentation of key components and some sensitivities to choices of model formulation and values of parameters, highlighting the convection parameterization and orographic gravity wave drag. The approach taken to tune the model's clouds to observations is a particular focal point. Care is taken to describe the extent to which aerosol effective forcing and Cess sensitivity have been tuned through the model development process, both of which are relevant to the ability of the model to simulate the evolution of temperatures over the last century when coupled to an ocean model.

In this two‐part paper, a description is provided of a version of the AM4.0/LM4.0 atmosphere/land model that will serve as a base for a new set of climate and Earth system models (CM4 and ESM4) under development at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). This version, with roughly 100 km horizontal resolution and 33 levels in the vertical, contains an aerosol model that generates aerosol fields from emissions and a “light” chemistry mechanism designed to support the aerosol model but with prescribed ozone. In Part 1, the quality of the simulation in AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) mode—with prescribed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea‐ice distribution—is described and compared with previous GFDL models and with the CMIP5 archive of AMIP simulations. The model's Cess sensitivity (response in the top‐of‐atmosphere radiative flux to uniform warming of SSTs) and effective radiative forcing are also presented. In Part 2, the model formulation is described more fully and key sensitivities to aspects of the model formulation are discussed, along with the approach to model tuning.

The primary purpose of this study is to assess the performance of 1D solar radiative transfer codes that are used currently both for research and in weather and climate models. Emphasis is on interpretation and handling of unresolved clouds. Answers are sought to the following questions: (i) How well do 1D solar codes interpret and handle columns of information pertaining to partly cloudy atmospheres? (ii) Regardless of the adequacy of their assumptions about unresolved clouds, do 1D solar codes perform as intended? One clear-sky and two plane-parallel, homogeneous (PPH) overcast cloud cases serve to elucidate 1D model differences due to varying treatments of gaseous transmittances, cloud optical properties, and basic radiative transfer. The remaining four cases involve 3D distributions of cloud water and water vapor as simulated by cloud-resolving models. Results for 25 1D codes, which included two line-by-line (LBL) models (clear and overcast only) and four 3D Monte Carlo (MC) photon transport algorithms, were submitted by 22 groups. Benchmark, domain-averaged irradiance profiles were computed by the MC codes. For the clear and overcast cases, all MC estimates of top-of-atmosphere albedo, atmospheric absorptance, and surface absorptance agree with one of the LBL codes to within Ϯ2%. Most 1D codes underestimate atmospheric absorptance by typically 15-25 W m Ϫ2 at overhead sun for the standard tropical atmosphere regardless of clouds. Depending on assumptions about unresolved clouds, the 1D codes were partitioned into four genres: (i) horizontal variability, (ii) exact overlap of PPH clouds, (iii) maximum/random overlap of PPH clouds, and (iv) random overlap of PPH clouds. A single MC code was used to establish conditional benchmarks applicable to each genre, and all MC codes were used to establish the full 3D benchmarks. There is a tendency for 1D codes to cluster near their respective conditional benchmarks, though intragenre variances typically exceed those for the clear and overcast cases. The majority of 1D codes fall into the extreme category of maximum/random overlap of PPH clouds and thus generally disagree with full 3D benchmark values. Given the fairly limited scope of these tests and the inability of any one code to perform extremely well for all cases begs the question that a paradigm shift is due for modeling 1D solar fluxes for cloudy atmospheres.

The configuration and performance of a new global atmosphere and land model for climate research developed at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) are presented. The atmosphere model, known as AM2, includes a new gridpoint dynamical core, a prognostic cloud scheme, and a multispecies aerosol climatology, as well as components from previous models used at GFDL. The land model, known as LM2, includes soil sensible and latent heat storage, groundwater storage, and stomatal resistance. The performance of the coupled model AM2–LM2 is evaluated with a series of prescribed sea surface temperature (SST) simulations. Particular focus is given to the model's climatology and the characteristics of interannual variability related to E1 Niño– Southern Oscillation (ENSO). One AM2–LM2 integration was performed according to the prescriptions of the second Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP II) and data were submitted to the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). Particular strengths of AM2–LM2, as judged by comparison to other models participating in AMIP II, include its circulation and distributions of precipitation. Prominent problems of AM2– LM2 include a cold bias to surface and tropospheric temperatures, weak tropical cyclone activity, and weak tropical intraseasonal activity associated with the Madden–Julian oscillation. An ensemble of 10 AM2–LM2 integrations with observed SSTs for the second half of the twentieth century permits a statistically reliable assessment of the model's response to ENSO. In general, AM2–LM2 produces a realistic simulation of the anomalies in tropical precipitation and extratropical circulation that are associated with ENSO.