Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress

Open access
Waliser, Duane E., Li, Jui‐Lin F., Woods, Christopher P., Austin, Richard T., Bacmeister, Julio, Chern, Jiundar, Del Genio, Anthony, Jiang, Jonathan H., Kuang, Zhiming, Meng, Huan, Minnis, Patrick, Platnick, Steve, Rossow, William B., Stephens, Graeme L., Sun‐Mack, Szedung, Tao, Wei‐Kuo, Tompkins, Adrian M., Vane, Deborah G., Walker, Christopher, Wu, Dong·2009·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2008jd010015

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.

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

Cited by

See all 394

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
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.