Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

On the potential of assimilating meteorological analyses in a global climate model for the purpose of model validation

Open access
Jeuken, A. B. M., Siegmund, P. C., Heijboer, L. C., Feichter, J., Bengtsson, L.·1996·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

A simple four‐dimensional assimilation technique, called Newtonian relaxation, has been applied to the Hamburg climate model (ECHAM), to enable comparison of model output with observations for short periods of time. The prognostic model variables vorticity, divergence, temperature, and surface pressure have been relaxed toward European Center for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) global meteorological analyses. Several experiments have been carried out, in which the values of the relaxation coefficients have been varied to find out which values are most usable for our purpose. To be able to use the method for validation of model physics or chemistry, good agreement of the model simulated mass and wind field is required. In addition, the model physics should not be disturbed too strongly by the relaxation forcing itself. Both aspects have been investigated. Good agreement with basic observed quantities, like wind, temperature, and pressure is obtained for most simulations in the extratropics. Derived variables, like precipitation and evaporation, have been compared with ECMWF forecasts and observations. Agreement for these variables is smaller than for the basic observed quantities. Nevertheless, considerable improvement is obtained relative to a control run without assimilation. Differences between tropics and extratropics are smaller than for the basic observed quantities. Results also show that precipitation and evaporation are affected by a sort of continuous spin‐up which is introduced by the relaxation: the bias (ECMWF‐ECHAM) is increasing with increasing relaxation forcing. In agreement with this result we found that with increasing relaxation forcing the vertical exchange of tracers by turbulent boundary layer mixing and, in a lesser extent, by convection, is reduced.

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 · 10.1029/96jd01218

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 237

Metadata

Authors
Jeuken, A. B. M., Siegmund, P. C., Heijboer, L. C., Feichter, J., & Bengtsson, L.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
1996-07
Volume
101
Issue
D12
Pages
16939-16950
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971793635
Cited by
237
References
0
FWCI
3.05
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: On the potential of assimilating meteorological analyses in a global climate model for the purpose of model validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/96jd01218
The paper
Jeuken, A. B. M., Siegmund, P. C., Heijboer, L. C., Feichter, J., & Bengtsson, L. (1996). On the potential of assimilating meteorological analyses in a global climate model for the purpose of model validation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/96jd01218

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.