Dreary state of precipitation in global models
Open accessAbstract
New, definitive measures of precipitation frequency provided by CloudSat are used to assess the realism of global model precipitation. The character of liquid precipitation (defined as a combination of accumulation, frequency, and intensity) over the global oceans is significantly different from the character of liquid precipitation produced by global weather and climate models. Five different models are used in this comparison representing state‐of‐the‐art weather prediction models, state‐of‐the‐art climate models, and the emerging high‐resolution global cloud “resolving” models. The differences between observed and modeled precipitation are larger than can be explained by observational retrieval errors or by the inherent sampling differences between observations and models. We show that the time integrated accumulations of precipitation produced by models closely match observations when globally composited. However, these models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly. This finding reinforces similar findings from other studies based on surface accumulated rainfall measurements. The implications of this dreary state of model depiction of the real world are discussed.
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
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.
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?
Global models precipitate too frequently with too low a mean precipitation intensity.
“Global models precipitate too frequently with too low a mean precipitation intensity [20, 82]”
From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [82]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 809
- Authors
- Stephens, G. L., L'Ecuyer, T., Forbes, R., Gettelmen, A., Golaz, J., Bodas‐Salcedo, A., Suzuki, K., Gabriel, P., & Haynes, J.
- Affiliations
- Colorado State University (US)
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
- European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (GB)
- NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
- NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (US)
- Met Office (GB)
- Monash University (AU)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2010-12-21
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- D24
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059116274
- Cited by
- 809
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 19.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Keywords
- precipitation frequency, global climate models, model evaluation, CloudSat, liquid precipitation, ocean precipitation, rainfall intensity, cloud-resolving model, precipitation accumulation, model-data comparison
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