The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models
Abstract
The need to understand differences among general circulation model projections of CO 2‐induced climatic change has motivated the present study, which provides an intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. This intercomparison uses sea surface temperature change as a surrogate for climate change. The interpretation of cloud‐climate interactions is given special attention. A roughly threefold variation in one measure of global climate sensitivity is found among the 19 models. The important conclusion is that most of this variation is attributable to differences in the models' depiction of cloud feedback, a result that emphasizes the need for improvements in the treatment of clouds in these models if they are ultimately to be used as reliable climate predictors. It is further emphasized that cloud feedback is the consequence of all interacting physical and dynamical processes in a general circulation model. The result of these processes is to produce changes in temperature, moisture distribution, and clouds which are integrated into the radiative response termed cloud feedback.
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
Cites
Thermodynamic constraint on the cloud liquid water feedback in climate models
Betts, A. K., & Harshvardhan (1987) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/jd092id07p08483 · Cited by 160
Cited by
Performance metrics for climate models.
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., & Doutriaux, C. (2008) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2007jd008972 · Cited by 1,328
Self-citationAn Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models
Soden, B. J., & Held, I. M. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3799.1 · Cited by 1,082
Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Aviation
Lee, D. S., Pitari, G., Grewe, V., Gierens, K., Penner, J. E., Petzold, A., Prather, M. J., Schumann, U., Bais, A., & Berntsen, T. (2010) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.005 · Cited by 765
Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing
Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., & Dufresne, J.-L. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12829 · Cited by 762
Structure and Performance of GFDL's CM4.0 Climate Model
Held, I. M., Guo, H., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J., Shevliakova, E., Winton, M., Zhao, M., Bushuk, M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001829 · Cited by 594
Metadata
- Authors
- Cess, R. D., Potter, G. L., Blanchet, J. P., Boer, G. J., Del Genio, A. D., Déqué, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W. L., Ghan, S. J., Kiehl, J. T., Lacis, A. A., Le Treut, H., Li, Z. ‐., Liang, X. ‐., McAvaney, B. J., Meleshko, V. P., Mitchell, J. F. B., Morcrette, J. ‐., Randall, D. A., Rikus, L., Roeckner, E., Royer, J. F., Schlese, U., Sheinin, D. A., Slingo, A., Sokolov, A. P., Taylor, K. E., Washington, W. M., Wetherald, R. T., Yagai, I., & Zhang, M. ‐.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1990-09-20
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- D10
- Pages
- 16601-16615
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076848415
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/jd095id10p16601
- The paper
- Cess, R. D., Potter, G. L., Blanchet, J. P., Boer, G. J., Del Genio, A. D., Déqué, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W. L., Ghan, S. J., Kiehl, J. T., Lacis, A. A., Le Treut, H., Li, Z. ‐., Liang, X. ‐., McAvaney, B. J., Meleshko, V. P., Mitchell, J. F. B., Morcrette, J. ‐., . . . Zhang, M. ‐. (1990). Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/jd095id10p16601
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.
