Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5*

Open access
Zelinka, Mark D., Klein, Stephen A., Taylor, Karl E., Andrews, Timothy, Webb, Mark J., Gregory, Jonathan M., Forster, Piers M.·2013·Journal of Climate

Abstract

Using five climate model simulations of the response to an abrupt quadrupling of CO2, the authors perform the first simultaneous model intercomparison of cloud feedbacks and rapid radiative adjustments with cloud masking effects removed, partitioned among changes in cloud types and gross cloud properties. Upon CO2 quadrupling, clouds exhibit a rapid reduction in fractional coverage, cloud-top pressure, and optical depth, with each contributing equally to a 1.1 W m−2 net cloud radiative adjustment, primarily from shortwave radiation. Rapid reductions in midlevel clouds and optically thick clouds are important in reducing planetary albedo in every model. As the planet warms, clouds become fewer, higher, and thicker, and global mean net cloud feedback is positive in all but one model and results primarily from increased trapping of longwave radiation. As was true for earlier models, high cloud changes are the largest contributor to intermodel spread in longwave and shortwave cloud feedbacks, but low cloud changes are the largest contributor to the mean and spread in net cloud feedback. The importance of the negative optical depth feedback relative to the amount feedback at high latitudes is even more marked than in earlier models. The authors show that the negative longwave cloud adjustment inferred in previous studies is primarily caused by a 1.3 W m−2 cloud masking of CO2 forcing. Properly accounting for cloud masking increases net cloud feedback by 0.3 W m−2 K−1, whereas accounting for rapid adjustments reduces by 0.14 W m−2 K−1 the ensemble mean net cloud feedback through a combination of smaller positive cloud amount and altitude feedbacks and larger negative optical depth feedbacks.

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/jcli-d-12-00555.1

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Taylor, K. E., Andrews, T., Webb, M. J., Gregory, J. M., & Forster, P. M.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2013-07-12
Volume
26
Issue
14
Pages
5007-5027
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W1972423646
Cited by
304
References
2
FWCI
21.41
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: Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00555.1
The paper
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Taylor, K. E., Andrews, T., Webb, M. J., Gregory, J. M., & Forster, P. M. (2013). Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5*. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00555.1

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.