Talk:Earth systems model of intermediate complexity

Overall, fair enough. Comments:

1. Drop the (EMIC) from the title when moving it to article space.
2. I'd drop "However, the degree to which higher resolution models improve accuracy rather than simply precision is contested" from the lede and bury it in the text somewhere.
3. The hist dev is a bit weird, because it covers GCMs too much. It should split off later.
4. The lede says carbon cycles were previously unincorporated, which is wrong. The main text admits that some GCMs include carbon cycle, which is right.
5. You can't say a model has 2.5 dimensions without saying what that means.
6. It seems odd not to mention stuff like running them over glacial cycles.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)