The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tropical Biases in CMIP5 Multimodel Ensemble: The Excessive Equatorial Pacific Cold Tongue and Double ITCZ Problems*
Abstract
Errors of coupled general circulation models (CGCMs) limit their utility for climate prediction and projection. Origins of and feedback for tropical biases are investigated in the historical climate simulations of 18 CGCMs from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), together with the available Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) simulations. Based on an intermodel empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of tropical Pacific precipitation, the excessive equatorial Pacific cold tongue and double intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) stand out as the most prominent errors of the current generation of CGCMs. The comparison of CMIP–AMIP pairs enables us to identify whether a given type of errors originates from atmospheric models. The equatorial Pacific cold tongue bias is associated with deficient precipitation and surface easterly wind biases in the western half of the basin in CGCMs, but these errors are absent in atmosphere-only models, indicating that the errors arise from the interaction with the ocean via Bjerknes feedback. For the double ITCZ problem, excessive precipitation south of the equator correlates well with excessive downward solar radiation in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) midlatitudes, an error traced back to atmospheric model simulations of cloud during austral spring and summer. This extratropical forcing of the ITCZ displacements is mediated by tropical ocean–atmosphere interaction and is consistent with recent studies of ocean–atmospheric energy transport balance.
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
Precipitation Characteristics in Eighteen Coupled Climate Models
Dai, A. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3884.1 · Cited by 1,098
Cited by
Cai, W., Santoso, A., Wang, G., Yeh, S.-W., An, S.-I., Cobb, K. M., Collins, M., Guilyardi, E., Jin, F.-F., Kug, J.-S., et al. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2743 · Cited by 891
Climate impacts of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on South America
Cai, W., McPhaden, M. J., Grimm, A. M., Rodrigues, R. R., Taschetto, A. S., Garreaud, R. D., Dewitte, B., Poveda, G., Ham, Y.-G., Santoso, A., et al. (2020) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-020-0040-3 · Cited by 782
Seager, R., Cane, M., Henderson, N., Lee, D.-E., Abernathey, R., & Zhang, H. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0505-x · Cited by 508
Schneider, T., Lan, S., Stuart, A., & Teixeira, J. (2017) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2017gl076101 · Cited by 391
Rainfall trends in the African Sahel: Characteristics, processes, and causes
Biasutti, M. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.591 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, G., & Xie, S.-P.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2014-02-10
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1765-1780
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W1976996532
- Cited by
- 534
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Tropical Biases in CMIP5 Multimodel Ensemble: The Excessive Equatorial Pacific Cold Tongue and Double ITCZ Problems*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-13-00337.1
- The paper
- Li, G., & Xie, S.-P. (2014). Tropical Biases in CMIP5 Multimodel Ensemble: The Excessive Equatorial Pacific Cold Tongue and Double ITCZ Problems*. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-13-00337.1
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.