Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 213

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An observationally based evaluation of cloud ice water in CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs and contemporary reanalyses using contemporary satellite data

Open access
Li, J.‐L. F., Waliser, D. E., Chen, W.‐T., Guan, B., Kubar, T., Stephens, G., Ma, H.‐Y., Deng, M., Donner, L., Seman, C., Horowitz, L.·2012·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

We perform an observationally based evaluation of the cloud ice water content (CIWC) and path (CIWP) of present‐day GCMs, notably 20th century CMIP5 simulations, and compare these results to CMIP3 and two recent reanalyses. We use three different CloudSat + CALIPSO ice water products and two methods to remove the contribution from the convective core ice mass and/or precipitating cloud hydrometeors with variable sizes and falling speeds so that a robust observational estimate can be obtained for model evaluations. The results show that for annual mean CIWP, there are factors of 2–10 in the differences between observations and models for a majority of the GCMs and for a number of regions. However, there are a number of CMIP5 models, including CNRM‐CM5, MRI, CCSM4 and CanESM2, as well as the UCLA CGCM, that perform well compared to our past evaluations. Systematic biases in CIWC vertical structure occur below the mid‐troposphere where the models overestimate CIWC, with this bias arising mostly from the extratropics. The tropics are marked by model differences in the level of maximum CIWC (∼250–550 hPa). Based on a number of metrics, the ensemble behavior of CMIP5 has improved considerably relative to CMIP3, although neither the CMIP5 ensemble mean nor any individual model performs particularly well, and there are still a number of models that exhibit very large biases despite the availability of relevant observations. The implications of these results on model representations of the Earth radiation balance are discussed, along with caveats and uncertainties associated with the observational estimates, model and observation representations of the precipitating and cloudy ice components, relevant physical processes and parameterizations.

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 · 10.1029/2012jd017640

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 213

Metadata

Authors
Li, J. ‐. F., Waliser, D. E., Chen, W. ‐., Guan, B., Kubar, T., Stephens, G., Ma, H. ‐., Deng, M., Donner, L., Seman, C., & Horowitz, L.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2012-08-21
Volume
117
Issue
D16
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986540838
Cited by
213
References
1
FWCI
14.34
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: An observationally based evaluation of cloud ice water in CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs and contemporary reanalyses using contemporary satellite data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2012jd017640
The paper
Li, J. ‐. F., Waliser, D. E., Chen, W. ‐., Guan, B., Kubar, T., Stephens, G., Ma, H. ‐., Deng, M., Donner, L., Seman, C., & Horowitz, L. (2012). An observationally based evaluation of cloud ice water in CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs and contemporary reanalyses using contemporary satellite data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012jd017640

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.