The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advanced Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics for Global Models. Part I: Off-Line Tests and Comparison with Other Schemes
Abstract
Prognostic precipitation is added to a cloud microphysical scheme for global climate models. Results indicate very similar performance to other commonly used mesoscale schemes in an offline driver for idealized warm rain cases, better than the previous version of the global model microphysics scheme with diagnostic precipitation. In the mixed phase regime, there is significantly more water and less ice, which may address a common bias seen with the scheme in climate simulations in the Arctic. For steady forcing cases, the scheme has limited sensitivity to time step out to the ~15-min time steps typical of global models. The scheme is similar to other schemes with moderate sensitivity to vertical resolution. The limited time step sensitivity bodes well for use of the scheme in multiscale models from the mesoscale to the large scale. The scheme is sensitive to idealized perturbations of cloud drop and crystal number. Precipitation decreases and condensate increases with increasing drop number, indicating substantial decreases in precipitation efficiency. The sensitivity is less than with the previous version of the scheme for low drop number concentrations (Nc < 100 cm−3). Ice condensate increases with ice number, with large decreases in liquid condensate as well for a mixed phase case. As expected with prognostic precipitation, accretion is stronger than with diagnostic precipitation and the accretion to autoconversion ratio increases faster with liquid water path (LWP), in better agreement with idealized models and earlier studies than the previous version.
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
Thompson, G., Field, P. R., Rasmussen, R. M., & Hall, W. D. (2008) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/2008mwr2387.1 · Cited by 3,156
Morrison, H., Thompson, G., & Tatarskii, V. (2009) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/2008mwr2556.1 · Cited by 2,438
Self-citationMorrison, H., Curry, J. A., & Khvorostyanov, V. I. (2005) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/jas3446.1 · Cited by 1,176
Self-citationMorrison, H., & Gettelman, A. (2008) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2008jcli2105.1 · Cited by 1,167
Self-citationThe Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., et al. (2019) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019 · Cited by 1,129
A parameterization of aerosol activation: 2. Multiple aerosol types
Abdul‐Razzak, H., & Ghan, S. J. (2000) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/1999jd901161 · Cited by 897
A New Cloud Physics Parameterization in a Large-Eddy Simulation Model of Marine Stratocumulus
Khairoutdinov, M., & Kogan, Y. (2000) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<0229:ancppi>2.0.co;2 · Cited by 809
The sulfate-CCN-cloud albedo effect: A sensitivity study with two general circulation models
Boucher, O., & Lohmann, U. (1995) · Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology · doi:10.3402/tellusb.v47i3.16048 · Cited by 432
Fowler, L. D., Randall, D. A., & Rutledge, S. A. (1996) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<0489:laicmi>2.0.co;2 · Cited by 273
Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Santos, S., Bogenschutz, P., & Caldwell, P. M. (2015) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00103.1 · Cited by 265
Self-citation
Cited by
Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P., Watson‐Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau, A. ‐., et al. (2020) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2019rg000660 · Cited by 1,116
Self-citationThe Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6)
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2019jd030943 · Cited by 786
Self-citationThe DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Description and Results at High Resolution
Caldwell, P. M., Mametjanov, A., Tang, Q., Van Roekel, L. P., Golaz, J., Lin, W., Bader, D. C., Keen, N. D., Feng, Y., Jacob, R., et al. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001870 · Cited by 267
Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Santos, S., Bogenschutz, P., & Caldwell, P. M. (2015) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00103.1 · Cited by 265
Self-citationTilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Zhu, Y., Bardeen, C. G., Vitt, F., Yu, P., Fillmore, D., Liu, X., Toon, B., & Deshler, T. (2023) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-16-6087-2023 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Gettelman, A., & Morrison, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2015-02-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1268-1287
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2141208140
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 8.68
- 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: Advanced Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics for Global Models. Part I: Off-Line Tests and Comparison with Other Schemes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00102.1
- The paper
- Gettelman, A., & Morrison, H. (2015). Advanced Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics for Global Models. Part I: Off-Line Tests and Comparison with Other Schemes. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00102.1
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.
