Southeast pacific stratocumulus in the community atmosphere model.
Abstract
Forecasts of October 2006 are used to investigate southeast Pacific stratocumulus in the Community Atmosphere Model, versions 4 and 5 (CAM4 and CAM5). Both models quickly develop biases similar to their climatic biases, suggesting that parameterized physics are the root of the climate errors. An extensive cloud deck is produced in CAM4, but the cloud structure is unrealistic because the boundary layer is too shallow and moist. The boundary layer structure is improved in CAM5, but during the daytime the boundary layer decouples from the cloud layer, causing the cloud layer to break up and transition toward a more trade wind cumulus structure in the afternoon. The cloud liquid water budget shows how different parameterizations contribute to maintaining these different expressions of stratocumulus. Sensitivity experiments help elucidate the origins of the errors. The importance of the diurnal cycle of these clouds for climate simulations is emphasized.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cause of parameterization biases is often model specific.
“The cause of parameterization biases is often model specific (Medeiros et al., 2012), and ongoing observations of the boundary layer thermodynamic structure and its cloud, precipitation, and aerosol vertical structure, including the diurnal cycle, are needed for continued model improvement.”
From The tropical atlantic observing system (2019) · cites this paper as Medeiros et al., 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Climate model biases in the eastern tropical oceans: causes, impacts and ways forward.
Richter, I. (2015) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.338 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
The tropical atlantic observing system
Foltz, G. R., Brandt, P., Richter, I., Rodríguez-Fonseca, B., Hernandez, F., Dengler, M., Rodrigues, R. R., Schmidt, J. O., Yu, L., Lefevre, N., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00206 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
- Authors
- Medeiros, B., Williamson, D. L., Hannay, C., & Olson, J. G.
- Affiliations
- NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2012-04-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 6175-6192
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2082679908
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Keywords
- Community Atmosphere Model, CAM4, CAM5, model bias, cloud parameterization, boundary layer structure, diurnal cycle, trade wind cumulus, cloud breakup, sensitivity experiments
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