CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate variability and modelsAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Influence of microphysics on the scaling of precipitation extremes with temperature

Open access
Singh, Martin S., O'Gorman, Paul A.·2014·Geophysical Research Letters
DOI 10.1002/2014gl061222
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Simulations of radiative‐convective equilibrium with a cloud‐system resolving model are used to investigate the scaling of high percentiles of the precipitation distribution (precipitation extremes) over a wide range of surface temperatures. At surface temperatures above roughly 295 K, precipitation extremes increase with warming in proportion to the increase in surface moisture, following what is termed Clausius‐Clapeyron (CC) scaling. At lower temperatures, the rate of increase of precipitation extremes depends on the choice of cloud and precipitation microphysics scheme and the accumulation period, and it differs markedly from CC scaling in some cases. Precipitation extremes are found to be sensitive to the fall speeds of hydrometeors, and this partly explains the different scaling results obtained with different microphysics schemes. The results suggest that microphysics play an important role in determining the response of convective precipitation extremes to warming, particularly when ice‐ and mixed‐phase processes are important.

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 · 10.1002/2014gl061222

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For surface temperatures near those of the present-day tropics, the precipitation extremes increase at close to the thermodynamic rate, and this is close to Clausius-Clapeyron scaling with the surface specific humidity, with relatively small contributions from changes in vertical velocities and precipitation efficiency.

    “For surface temperatures near those of the present-day tropics, the precipitation extremes increase at close to the thermodynamic rate, and this is close to Clausius-Clapeyron scaling with the surface specific humidity, with relatively small contributions from changes in vertical velocities and precipitation efficiency [56, 70, 77].”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [77]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Updrafts do become somewhat faster with warming when lapse rates are allowed to equilibrate rather than being imposed in simulations of RCE, although the dynamical contribution to changes in precipitation extremes is still relatively small.

    “As discussed in the “Theory” section, updrafts do become somewhat faster with warming when lapse rates are allowed to equilibrate (rather than being imposed) in simulations of RCE, although the dynamical contribution to changes in precipitation extremes is still relatively small [56, 70, 77].”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [77]

    Section 4 reports that peak updraft velocity increases with warming in RCE simulations, while low-level velocity decreases and net-condensation extremes remain close to Clausius–Clapeyron scaling. It calls dynamical differences relatively small across microphysics schemes, but does not compare equilibrated with imposed lapse rates or establish that the overall dynamical contribution to precipitation-extreme changes is small. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Instantaneous precipitation extremes increase at close to double the Clausius-Clapeyron rate for temperatures below 295 K.

    “Instantaneous precipitation extremes increase at close to double the Clausius-Clapeyron rate for temperatures below 295 K”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [77]

    Section 3 reports that below 295 K, instantaneous precipitation extremes approach twice the Clausius–Clapeyron rate in simulations using the Lin-hail microphysics scheme. The claim omits that qualification: the paper says scaling at lower temperatures depends strongly on the microphysics scheme and reaches up to twice the rate for one scheme, not generally. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The increase in instantaneous precipitation extremes below 295 K is due to increases in precipitation efficiency with warming, related in part to increases in hydrometeor fall speed as more of the precipitation in the column changes from solid to liquid.

    “and this has been shown to be due to increases in precipitation efficiency with warming, related in part to increases in hydrometeor fall speed as more of the precipitation in the column changes from solid to liquid [77].”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [77]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For temperatures below 295 K, the precipitation efficiency can change substantially with warming and the scaling of precipitation extremes then depends on the accumulation period considered.

    “However, for temperatures below 295 K, the precipitation efficiency can change substantially with warming and the scaling of precipitation extremes then depends on the accumulation period considered [77], as discussed in the “Duration of Precipitation Extremes” section.”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [77]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Singh, M. S., & O'Gorman, P. A.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Singh, Martin S.
ORCID
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2014-08-22
Volume
41
Issue
16
Pages
6037-6044
ISSN
  • 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8007
DOI
10.1002/2014gl061222
OpenAlex
W2137928718
Cited by
111
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8
FWCI
5.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • NSF (AGS-1148594)
  • NASA ROSES (09-IDS09-0049)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
heavy rainfall, Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, cloud microphysics, radiative-convective equilibrium, convective precipitation, surface warming, ice-phase processes, surface moisture, climate sensitivity

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