Template talk:Atmospheric, Oceanographic and Climate Models

NAM vs WRF

Since the NAM is a specific instance of the WRF, does it actually belong under Regional and mesoscale models? It undoubtedly merits inclusion in the template, but labeling it as a model itself is a bit of a misnomer. Model run would be a better descriptor, but I'm not sure how to fit that into the template. Jason Patton (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another model to include?

The U.S. Navy is modeling high seas and offshore wind and waves. See https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/ww3_cgi/index.html I suggest this for inclusion in this template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halwyman (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common model names

Biosphere model and Ice-sheet model might need some clarification in regards to this template. prokaryotes (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of frameworks and protocols

I suggest to include frameworks such as ESMF and protocols (interoperability projects) such as CMIP5. prokaryotes (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wave models?

Should wave models be included in this template? It feels odd to me that WAVEWATCH isn't listed in here, at the least. I'm particularly thinking with regard to the coupling of atmospheric, oceanic, and wave models. Tfocker4 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]