1: \begin{abstract}

2:   We compare five general circulation models (GCMs) which have been

3:   recently used to study hot extrasolar planet atmospheres (BOB, CAM,

4:   IGCM, MITgcm, and PEQMOD), under three test cases useful for

5:   assessing model convergence and accuracy.  Such a broad, detailed

6:   intercomparison has not been performed thus far for extrasolar

7:   planets study.  The models considered all solve the traditional

8:   primitive equations, but employ different numerical algorithms or

9:   grids (e.g., pseudospectral and finite volume, with the latter

10:   separately in longitude-latitude and `cubed-sphere' grids).  The

11:   test cases are chosen to cleanly address specific aspects of the

12:   behaviors typically reported in hot extrasolar planet simulations:

13:   {\it 1})~steady-state, {\it 2})~nonlinearly evolving baroclinic

14:   wave, and {\it 3})~response to fast timescale thermal relaxation.

15:   When initialized with a steady jet, all models maintain the

16:   steadiness, as they should---except MITgcm in cubed-sphere grid.  A

17:   very good agreement is obtained for a baroclinic wave evolving from

18:   an initial instability in pseudospectral models (only).  However,

19:   exact numerical convergence is still not achieved across the

20:   pseudospectral models: amplitudes and phases are observably different.

21:   When subject to a typical `hot-Jupiter'-like forcing, all five

22:   models show quantitatively different behavior---although

23:   qualitatively similar, time-variable, quadrupole-dominated flows are

24:   produced.  Hence, as have been advocated in several past studies,

25:   specific quantitative predictions (such as the location of large

26:   vortices and hot regions) by GCMs should be viewed with caution.

27:   Overall, in the tests considered here, pseudospectral models in pressure

28:   coordinate (PEBOB and PEQMOD) perform the best and MITgcm in

29:   cubed-sphere grid performs the worst.

30: \end{abstract}

31: