Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 174 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Challenges in Quantifying Changes in the Global Water Cycle

Open access
Hegerl, Gabriele C., Black, Emily, Allan, Richard P., Ingram, William J., Polson, Debbie, Trenberth, Kevin E., Chadwick, Robin S., Arkin, Phillip A., Sarojini, Beena Balan, Becker, Andreas, Dai, Aiguo, Durack, Paul J., Easterling, David, Fowler, Hayley J., Kendon, Elizabeth J., Huffman, George J., Liu, Chunlei, Marsh, Robert, New, Mark, Osborn, Timothy J., Skliris, Nikolaos, Stott, Peter A., Vidale, Pier-Luigi, Wijffels, Susan E., Wilcox, Laura J., Willett, Kate M., Zhang, Xuebin·2015·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

Understanding observed changes to the global water cycle is key to predicting future climate changes and their impacts. While many datasets document crucial variables such as precipitation, ocean salinity, runoff, and humidity, most are uncertain for determining long-term changes. In situ networks provide long time series over land, but are sparse in many regions, particularly the tropics. Satellite and reanalysis datasets provide global coverage, but their long-term stability is lacking. However, comparisons of changes among related variables can give insights into the robustness of observed changes. For example, ocean salinity, interpreted with an understanding of ocean processes, can help cross-validate precipitation. Observational evidence for human influences on the water cycle is emerging, but uncertainties resulting from internal variability and observational errors are too large to determine whether the observed and simulated changes are consistent. Improvements to the in situ and satellite observing networks that monitor the changing water cycle are required, yet continued data coverage is threatened by funding reductions. Uncertainty both in the role of anthropogenic aerosols and because of the large climate variability presently limits confidence in attribution of observed changes.

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/bams-d-13-00212.1

Cites

174 of 174 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 174 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Hegerl, G. C., Black, E., Allan, R. P., Ingram, W. J., Polson, D., Trenberth, K. E., Chadwick, R. S., Arkin, P. A., Sarojini, B. B., Becker, A., Dai, A., Durack, P. J., Easterling, D., Fowler, H. J., Kendon, E. J., Huffman, G. J., Liu, C., Marsh, R., New, M., Osborn, T. J., Skliris, N., Stott, P. A., Vidale, P.-L., Wijffels, S. E., Wilcox, L. J., Willett, K. M., & Zhang, X.
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
1097-1115
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W2114236831
Cited by
313
References
174
FWCI
11.67
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: Challenges in Quantifying Changes in the Global Water Cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/bams-d-13-00212.1
The paper
Hegerl, G. C., Black, E., Allan, R. P., Ingram, W. J., Polson, D., Trenberth, K. E., Chadwick, R. S., Arkin, P. A., Sarojini, B. B., Becker, A., Dai, A., Durack, P. J., Easterling, D., Fowler, H. J., Kendon, E. J., Huffman, G. J., Liu, C., Marsh, R., New, M., . . . Zhang, X. (2015). Challenges in Quantifying Changes in the Global Water Cycle. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-13-00212.1

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.