Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models: CLOUD WATER PHASE IN GCMs

Open access
Komurcu, Muge, Storelvmo, Trude, Tan, Ivy, Lohmann, Ulrike, Yun, Yuxing, Penner, Joyce E., Wang, Yong, Liu, Xiaohong, Takemura, Toshihiko·2014·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth's atmosphere and influence the Earth's energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2013jd021119

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Komurcu, M., Storelvmo, T., Tan, I., Lohmann, U., Yun, Y., Penner, J. E., Wang, Y., Liu, X., & Takemura, T.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2014-03-27
Volume
119
Issue
6
Pages
3372-3400
ISSN
  • 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-897X
OpenAlex
W1596195367
Cited by
200
References
1
FWCI
12.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models: CLOUD WATER PHASE IN GCMs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2013jd021119
The paper
Komurcu, M., Storelvmo, T., Tan, I., Lohmann, U., Yun, Y., Penner, J. E., Wang, Y., Liu, X., & Takemura, T. (2014). Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models: CLOUD WATER PHASE IN GCMs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jd021119

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.