The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Ability of CMIP5 Models to Simulate North Atlantic Extratropical Cyclones*
Open accessAbstract
The ability of the climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to simulate North Atlantic extratropical cyclones in winter [December–February (DJF)] and summer [June–August (JJA)] is investigated in detail. Cyclones are identified as maxima in T42 vorticity at 850 hPa and their propagation is tracked using an objective feature-tracking algorithm. By comparing the historical CMIP5 simulations (1976–2005) and the ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim; 1979–2008), the authors find that systematic biases affect the number and intensity of North Atlantic cyclones in CMIP5 models. In DJF, the North Atlantic storm track tends to be either too zonal or displaced southward, thus leading to too few and weak cyclones over the Norwegian Sea and too many cyclones in central Europe. In JJA, the position of the North Atlantic storm track is generally well captured but some CMIP5 models underestimate the total number of cyclones. The dynamical intensity of cyclones, as measured by either T42 vorticity at 850 hPa or mean sea level pressure, is too weak in both DJF and JJA. The intensity bias has a hemispheric character, and it cannot be simply attributed to the representation of the North Atlantic large-scale atmospheric state. Despite these biases, the representation of Northern Hemisphere (NH) storm tracks has improved since CMIP3 and some CMIP5 models are able of representing well both the number and the intensity of North Atlantic cyclones. In particular, some of the higher-atmospheric-resolution models tend to have a better representation of the tilt of the North Atlantic storm track and of the intensity of cyclones in DJF.
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
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052
Understanding the varied response of the extratropical storm tracks to climate change
O’Gorman, P. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1011547107 · Cited by 173
Cited by
(2017) · doi:10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017 · Cited by 685
The impact of climate change on the levelised cost of wind energy
Hdidouan, D., & Staffell, I. (2017) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.003 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Zappa, G., Shaffrey, L. C., & Hodges, K. I.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2013-07-26
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 5379-5396
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2157924877
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.61
- 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 Ability of CMIP5 Models to Simulate North Atlantic Extratropical Cyclones*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00501.1
- The paper
- Zappa, G., Shaffrey, L. C., & Hodges, K. I. (2013). The Ability of CMIP5 Models to Simulate North Atlantic Extratropical Cyclones*. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00501.1
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.