The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress
Open accessAbstract
Present‐day shortcomings in the representation of upper tropospheric ice clouds in general circulation models (GCMs) lead to errors in weather and climate forecasts as well as account for a source of uncertainty in climate change projections. An ongoing challenge in rectifying these shortcomings has been the availability of adequate, high‐quality, global observations targeting ice clouds and related precipitating hydrometeors. In addition, the inadequacy of the modeled physics and the often disjointed nature between model representation and the characteristics of the retrieved/observed values have hampered GCM development and validation efforts from making effective use of the measurements that have been available. Thus, even though parameterizations in GCMs accounting for cloud ice processes have, in some cases, become more sophisticated in recent years, this development has largely occurred independently of the global‐scale measurements. With the relatively recent addition of satellite‐derived products from Aura/Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and CloudSat, there are now considerably more resources with new and unique capabilities to evaluate GCMs. In this article, we illustrate the shortcomings evident in model representations of cloud ice through a comparison of the simulations assessed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, briefly discuss the range of global observational resources that are available, and describe the essential components of the model parameterizations that characterize their “cloud” ice and related fields. Using this information as background, we (1) discuss some of the main considerations and cautions that must be taken into account in making model‐data comparisons related to cloud ice, (2) illustrate present progress and uncertainties in applying satellite cloud ice (namely from MLS and CloudSat) to model diagnosis, (3) show some indications of model improvements, and finally (4) discuss a number of remaining questions and suggestions for pathways forward.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus
Burkhardt, U., & Kärcher, B. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1068 · Cited by 414
Effects of ice nuclei on cirrus clouds in a global climate model
Hendricks, J., Kärcher, B., & Lohmann, U. (2011) · Journal of Geophysical Research · doi:10.1029/2010jd015302 · Cited by 122
Lauer, A., & Hamilton, K. (2013) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00451.1 · Cited by 120
Anthropogenic aerosol indirect effects in cirrus clouds
Penner, J. E., Zhou, C., Garnier, A., & Mitchell, D. L. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2018jd029204 · Cited by 94
Lamquin, N., Stubenrauch, C. J., Gierens, K., Burkhardt, U., & Smit, H. (2012) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-12-381-2012 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Waliser, D. E., Li, J. F., Woods, C. P., Austin, R. T., Bacmeister, J., Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J. H., Kuang, Z., Meng, H., Minnis, P., Platnick, S., Rossow, W. B., Stephens, G. L., Sun‐Mack, S., Tao, W., Tompkins, A. M., Vane, D. G., Walker, C., & Wu, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2009-01-29
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- D8
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007074726
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.67
- 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: Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2008jd010015
- The paper
- Waliser, D. E., Li, J. F., Woods, C. P., Austin, R. T., Bacmeister, J., Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J. H., Kuang, Z., Meng, H., Minnis, P., Platnick, S., Rossow, W. B., Stephens, G. L., Sun‐Mack, S., Tao, W., Tompkins, A. M., Vane, D. G., Walker, C., & Wu, D. (2009). Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010015
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.