Cited by 120Atmospheric aerosols and cloudsClimate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Simulating clouds with global climate models: a comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data.

Lauer, Axel, Hamilton, Kevin·2013·Journal of Climate

Abstract

Clouds are a key component of the climate system affecting radiative balances and the hydrological cycle. Previous studies from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) showed quite large biases in the simulated cloud climatology affecting all GCMs as well as a remarkable degree of variation among the models that represented the state of the art circa 2005. Here the progress that has been made in recent years is measured by comparing mean cloud properties, interannual variability, and the climatological seasonal cycle from the CMIP5 models with satellite observations and with results from comparable CMIP3 experiments. The focus is on three climate-relevant cloud parameters: cloud amount, liquid water path, and cloud radiative forcing. The comparison shows that intermodel differences are still large in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, and reveals some small improvements of particular cloud properties in some regions in the CMIP5 ensemble over CMIP3. In CMIP5 there is an improved agreement of the modeled interannual variability of liquid water path and of the modeled longwave cloud forcing over mid- and high-latitude oceans with observations. However, the differences in the simulated cloud climatology from CMIP3 and CMIP5 are generally small, and there is very little to no improvement apparent in the tropical and subtropical regions in CMIP5. Comparisons of the results from the coupled CMIP5 models with their atmosphere-onl…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/jcli-d-12-00451.1

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 atmospheric component of the coupled models is the primary culprit for the Southeast Atlantic warm SST bias, with the ocean playing a vital but secondary role.

    “This suggests the atmospheric component of the coupled models is the primary culprit (Lauer and Hamilton, 2013), with the ocean playing a vital but secondary role (Richter, 2015).”

    From The tropical atlantic observing system (2019) · cites this paper as Lauer and Hamilton, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lauer, A., & Hamilton, K.
Affiliations
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2013-05-31
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
3823-3845
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W1982185059
Cited by
120
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 3
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
cloud simulation, CMIP5, CMIP3, cloud climatology, liquid water path, cloud radiative forcing, interannual variability, seasonal cycle, satellite validation, inter-model differences, boundary layer processes

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