Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 430

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

The Soil Moisture–Precipitation Feedback in Simulations with Explicit and Parameterized Convection

Open access
Hohenegger, Cathy, Brockhaus, Peter, Bretherton, Christopher S., Schär, Christoph·2009·Journal of Climate

Abstract

Moist convection is a key aspect of the extratropical summer climate and strongly affects the delicate balance of processes that determines the surface climate in response to larger-scale forcings. Previous studies using parameterized convection have found that the feedback between soil moisture and precipitation is predominantly positive (more precipitation over wet soils) over Europe. Here this feedback is investigated for one full month (July 2006) over the Alpine region using two different model configurations. The first one employs regional climate simulations performed with the Consortium for Small-Scale Modeling Model in Climate Mode (CCLM) on a grid spacing of 25 km. The second one uses the same model but integrated on a cloud-resolving grid of 2.2 km, allowing an explicit treatment of convection. Each configuration comprises one control and two sensitivity experiments. The latter start from perturbed soil moisture initial conditions. Comparison of the simulated soil moisture–precipitation feedback reveals significant differences between the two systems. The 25-km simulations sustain a strong positive feedback, while those at 2.2-km resolution are associated with a predominantly negative feedback. Thus the two systems yield not only different strengths of this key feedback but also different signs. This has important implications, with the cloud-resolving model exhibiting a shorter soil moisture memory and a smaller soil moisture–temperature feedback. Analysis shows that the different feedback signs relate to the sensitivity of the simulated convective development to the presence of a stable layer sitting on top of the planetary boundary layer. In the 2.2-km integrations, dry initial soil moisture conditions yield more vigorous thermals (owing to stronger daytime heating), which can more easily break through the stable air barrier, thereby leading to deep convection and ultimately to a negative soil moisture–precipitation feedback loop. In the 25-km integrations, deep convection is much less sensitive to the stable layer because of the design of the employed convective parameterization. The authors also show that there are considerable differences in the simulated soil moisture–precipitation feedback between low-resolution modeling frameworks using different cloud convection schemes.

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 · 10.1175/2009jcli2604.1

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 430

Metadata

Authors
Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., Bretherton, C. S., & Schär, C.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
22
Issue
19
Pages
5003-5020
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W2003567919
Cited by
430
References
1
FWCI
10.50
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: The Soil Moisture–Precipitation Feedback in Simulations with Explicit and Parameterized Convection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2009jcli2604.1
The paper
Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., Bretherton, C. S., & Schär, C. (2009). The Soil Moisture–Precipitation Feedback in Simulations with Explicit and Parameterized Convection. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli2604.1

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.