Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 594

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

The Double-ITCZ Problem in IPCC AR4 Coupled GCMs: Ocean–Atmosphere Feedback Analysis

Lin, Jia-Lin·2007·Journal of Climate
DOI 10.1175/jcli4272.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines the double–intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) problem in the coupled general circulation models (CGCMs) participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The twentieth-century climate simulations of 22 IPCC AR4 CGCMs are analyzed, together with the available Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) runs from 12 of them. To understand the physical mechanisms for the double-ITCZ problem, the main ocean–atmosphere feedbacks, including the zonal sea surface temperature (SST) gradient–trade wind feedback (or Bjerknes feedback), the SST–surface latent heat flux (LHF) feedback, and the SST–surface shortwave flux (SWF) feedback, are studied in detail. The results show that most of the current state-of-the-art CGCMs have some degree of the double-ITCZ problem, which is characterized by excessive precipitation over much of the Tropics (e.g., Northern Hemisphere ITCZ, South Pacific convergence zone, Maritime Continent, and equatorial Indian Ocean), and are often associated with insufficient precipitation over the equatorial Pacific. The excessive precipitation over much of the Tropics usually causes overly strong trade winds, excessive LHF, and insufficient SWF, leading to significant cold SST bias in much of the tropical oceans. Most of the models also simulate insufficient latitudinal asymmetry in precipitation and SST over the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The AMIP runs also produce excessive precipitation over much of the Tropics, including the equatorial Pacific, which also leads to overly strong trade winds, excessive LHF, and insufficient SWF. This suggests that the excessive tropical precipitation is an intrinsic error of the atmospheric models, and that the insufficient equatorial Pacific precipitation in the coupled runs of many models comes from ocean–atmosphere feedback. Feedback analysis demonstrates that the insufficient equatorial Pacific precipitation in different models is associated with one or more of the following three biases in ocean–atmosphere feedback over the equatorial Pacific: 1) excessive Bjerknes feedback, which is caused by excessive sensitivity of precipitation to SST and overly strong time-mean surface wind speed; 2) overly positive SST–LHF feedback, which is caused by excessive sensitivity of surface air humidity to SST; and 3) insufficient SST–SWF feedback, which is caused by insufficient sensitivity of cloud amount to precipitation. Off the equator over the eastern Pacific stratus region, most of the models produce insufficient stratus–SST feedback associated with insufficient sensitivity of stratus cloud amount to SST, which may contribute to the insufficient latitudinal asymmetry of SST in their coupled runs. These results suggest that the double-ITCZ problem in CGCMs may be alleviated by reducing the excessive tropical precipitation and the above feedback-relevant errors in the atmospheric models.

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/jcli4272.1

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 594

Metadata

Authors
Lin, J.-L.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Published
2007-09-15
Volume
20
Issue
18
Pages
4497-4525
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
DOI
10.1175/jcli4272.1
OpenAlex
W2158626702
Cited by
594
References
62
FWCI
19.56
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

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.