Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 834

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ocean Circulation and Tropical Variability in the Coupled Model ECHAM5/MPI-OM

Open access
Jungclaus, J. H., Keenlyside, N., Botzet, M., Haak, H., Luo, J.-J., Latif, M., Marotzke, J., Mikolajewicz, U., Roeckner, E.·2006·Journal of Climate
DOI 10.1175/jcli3827.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper describes the mean ocean circulation and the tropical variability simulated by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM). Results are presented from a version of the coupled model that served as a prototype for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) simulations. The model does not require flux adjustment to maintain a stable climate. A control simulation with present-day greenhouse gases is analyzed, and the simulation of key oceanic features, such as sea surface temperatures (SSTs), large-scale circulation, meridional heat and freshwater transports, and sea ice are compared with observations. A parameterization that accounts for the effect of ocean currents on surface wind stress is implemented in the model. The largest impact of this parameterization is in the tropical Pacific, where the mean state is significantly improved: the strength of the trade winds and the associated equatorial upwelling weaken, and there is a reduction of the model’s equatorial cold SST bias by more than 1 K. Equatorial SST variability also becomes more realistic. The strength of the variability is reduced by about 30% in the eastern equatorial Pacific and the extension of SST variability into the warm pool is significantly reduced. The dominant El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) period shifts from 3 to 4 yr. Without the parameterization an unrealistically strong westward propagation of SST anomalies is simulated. The reasons for the changes in variability are linked to changes in both the mean state and to a reduction in atmospheric sensitivity to SST changes and oceanic sensitivity to wind anomalies.

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/jcli3827.1

Cites

62 of 62 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

Cited by

See all 834

Metadata

Authors
Jungclaus, J. H., Keenlyside, N., Botzet, M., Haak, H., Luo, J.-J., Latif, M., Marotzke, J., Mikolajewicz, U., & Roeckner, E.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Published
2006-08-15
Volume
19
Issue
16
Pages
3952-3972
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
DOI
10.1175/jcli3827.1
OpenAlex
W2070508879
Cited by
834
References
62
FWCI
47.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.