Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed‐phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: single‐layer cloud

Open access
Klein, Stephen A., McCoy, Renata B., Morrison, Hugh, Ackerman, Andrew S., Avramov, Alexander, Boer, Gijs de, Chen, Mingxuan, Cole, Jason N. S., Del Genio, Anthony D., Falk, Michael, Foster, Michael J., Fridlind, Ann, Golaz, Jean‐Christophe, Hashino, Tempei, Harrington, Jerry Y., Hoose, Corinna, Khairoutdinov, Marat F., Larson, Vincent E., Liu, Xiaohong, Luo, Yali, McFarquhar, Greg M., Menon, Surabi, Neggers, Roel A. J., Park, Sungsu, Poellot, Michael R., Schmidt, Jerome M., Sednev, Igor, Shipway, Ben J., Shupe, Matthew D., Spangenberg, Douglas A., Sud, Yogesh C., Turner, David D., Veron, Dana E., Salzen, Knut von, Walker, Gregory K., Wang, Zhien, Wolf, Audrey B., Xie, Shaocheng, Xu, Kuan‐Man, Yang, Fanglin, Zhang, Gong·2009·Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Abstract

Results are presented from an intercomparison of single‐column and cloud‐resolving model simulations of a cold‐air outbreak mixed‐phase stratocumulus cloud observed during the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) programme's Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. The observed cloud occurred in a well‐mixed boundary layer with a cloud‐top temperature of − 15 °C. The average liquid water path of around 160 g m−2 was about two‐thirds of the adiabatic value and far greater than the average mass of ice which when integrated from the surface to cloud top was around 15 g m−2. Simulations of 17 single‐column models (SCMs) and 9 cloud‐resolving models (CRMs) are compared. While the simulated ice water path is generally consistent with observed values, the median SCM and CRM liquid water path is a factor‐of‐three smaller than observed. Results from a sensitivity study in which models removed ice microphysics suggest that in many models the interaction between liquid and ice‐phase microphysics is responsible for the large model underestimate of liquid water path. Despite this underestimate, the simulated liquid and ice water paths of several models are consistent with observed values. Furthermore, models with more sophisticated microphysics simulate liquid and ice water paths that are in better agreement with the observed values, although considerable scatter exists. Although no single factor guarantees a good simulation, these results emphasize the need for improvement in the model representation of mixed‐phase microphysics. Copyright © 2009 Royal Meteorological Society

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/qj.416

Cites

71 of 71 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 71 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Klein, S. A., McCoy, R. B., Morrison, H., Ackerman, A. S., Avramov, A., Boer, G. D., Chen, M., Cole, J. N. S., Del Genio, A. D., Falk, M., Foster, M. J., Fridlind, A., Golaz, J., Hashino, T., Harrington, J. Y., Hoose, C., Khairoutdinov, M. F., Larson, V. E., Liu, X., Luo, Y., McFarquhar, G. M., Menon, S., Neggers, R. A. J., Park, S., Poellot, M. R., Schmidt, J. M., Sednev, I., Shipway, B. J., Shupe, M. D., Spangenberg, D. A., Sud, Y. C., Turner, D. D., Veron, D. E., Salzen, K. V., Walker, G. K., Wang, Z., Wolf, A. B., Xie, S., Xu, K., Yang, F., & Zhang, G.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04
Volume
135
Issue
641
Pages
979-1002
ISSN
  • 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-870X
OpenAlex
W2138884861
Cited by
369
References
71
FWCI
16.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 model simulations of mixed‐phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: single‐layer cloud. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/qj.416
The paper
Klein, S. A., McCoy, R. B., Morrison, H., Ackerman, A. S., Avramov, A., Boer, G. D., Chen, M., Cole, J. N. S., Del Genio, A. D., Falk, M., Foster, M. J., Fridlind, A., Golaz, J., Hashino, T., Harrington, J. Y., Hoose, C., Khairoutdinov, M. F., Larson, V. E., Liu, X., . . . Zhang, G. (2009). Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed‐phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: single‐layer cloud. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.416

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.