CNRM-CERFACS Feedbacks on aerosol spreadsheet

[mpmoine]

Here are some comments from scientists who filled-in the aerosol spreadsheet:

1. The aerosol pages of ES-DOC are not very easy to understand (for example we wonder what is asked in "Commonly used name for the model in aerosol model" ??), and some documentation would be appreciated in general
2. There are some redundancies between the different sheets (for example concerning the grid, the number of wavelengths in the longwave radiative code, the emissions, ...), and some obvious mistakes (Convention instead of convection, twice !)
3. This document implies that the aerosol model depends on the chemistry model (because the proposition "uses atmospheric chemistry xx" is often shown), which is not the case for all models. Instead of that, it would have been better to have "uses atmospheric physics xx", which could be more useful for CMIP6 models.
4. The order of the questions and the asterisks which indicate the non-optional/optional items are sometimes surprising (for example, questions with asterisks are often after questions without, important questions in 7.model such as the type of aerosol scheme (bin/modal) are only asked at the end, etc.)

[davidhassell]

I am making progress with these....

Is it possible for a different number of longwave bands to be used cloud interactions (vs interaction with all media: clouds + air)?

[davidhassell]

Could you please give examples of the "emissions" redundancies? Thanks.