The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 153 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. The primary objective of CFMIP is to inform future assessments of cloud feedbacks through improved understanding of cloud–climate feedback mechanisms and better evaluation of cloud processes and cloud feedbacks in climate models. However, the CFMIP approach is also increasingly being used to understand other aspects of climate change, and so a second objective has now been introduced, to improve understanding of circulation, regional-scale precipitation, and non-linear changes. CFMIP is supporting ongoing model inter-comparison activities by coordinating a hierarchy of targeted experiments for CMIP6, along with a set of cloud-related output diagnostics. CFMIP contributes primarily to addressing the CMIP6 questions How does the Earth system respond to forcing? and What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases? and supports the activities of the WCRP Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity.A compact set of Tier 1 experiments is proposed for CMIP6 to address this question: (1) what are the physical mechanisms underlying the range of cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments predicted by climate models, and which models have the most credible cloud feedbacks? Additional Tier 2 experiments are proposed to address the following questions. (2) Are cloud feedbacks consistent for climate cooling and warming, and if not, why? (3) How do cloud-radiative effects impact the structure, the strength and the variability of the general atmospheric circulation in present and future climates? (4) How do responses in the climate system due to changes in solar forcing differ from changes due to CO2, and is the response sensitive to the sign of the forcing? (5) To what extent is regional climate change per CO2 doubling state-dependent (non-linear), and why? (6) Are climate feedbacks during the 20th century different to those acting on long-term climate change and climate sensitivity? (7) How do regional climate responses (e.g. in precipitation) and their uncertainties in coupled models arise from the combination of different aspects of CO2 forcing and sea surface warming?CFMIP also proposes a number of additional model outputs in the CMIP DECK, CMIP6 Historical and CMIP6 CFMIP experiments, including COSP simulator outputs and process diagnostics to address the following questions. How well do clouds and other relevant variables simulated by models agree with observations?What physical processes and mechanisms are important for a credible simulation of clouds, cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments in climate models?Which models have the most credible representations of processes relevant to the simulation of clouds?How do clouds and their changes interact with other elements of the climate system?
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
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Schiavon, S., & Zecchin, R. (2007) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 16,994
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
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 · Cited by 11,981
Self-citationRobust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming
Held, I. M., & Soden, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3990.1 · Cited by 4,959
Advances in Understanding Clouds from ISCCP
Rossow, W. B., & Schiffer, R. A. (1999) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<2261:aiucfi>2.0.co;2 · Cited by 2,256
Climate models and their evaluation
Randall, D. A., & Fichefet, T. (2007) · University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) · Cited by 1,500
(2014) · Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.016 · Cited by 1,423
Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models
Bony, S., & Dufresne, J. (2005) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2005gl023851 · Cited by 1,302
Self-citationA new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A., Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., & Williams, K. D. (2004) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2003gl018747 · Cited by 1,075
Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity
Bony, S., Stevens, B., Frierson, D. M. W., Jakob, C., Kageyama, M., Pincus, R., Shepherd, T. G., Sherwood, S. C., Siebesma, A. P., Sobel, A. H., et al. (2015) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo2398 · Cited by 982
Self-citation
Cited by
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G., Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M., et al. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y · Cited by 748
Self-citationCloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models
Ceppi, P., Brient, F., Zelinka, M. D., & Hartmann, D. L. (2017) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.465 · Cited by 430
The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 1: Overview and over-arching analysis plan
Kageyama, M., Braconnot, P., Harrison, S. P., Haywood, A. M., Jungclaus, J. H., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Peterschmitt, J.-Y., Abe-Ouchi, A., Albani, S., Bartlein, P. J., et al. (2018) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-11-1033-2018 · Cited by 361
Smith, D. M., Screen, J. A., Deser, C., Cohen, J., Fyfe, J. C., García-Serrano, J., Jung, T., Kattsov, V., Matei, D., Msadek, R., et al. (2019) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-12-1139-2019 · Cited by 357
(2023) · Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis · doi:10.1017/9781009157896.003 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., & Watanabe, M.
- Venue
- Geoscientific Model Development
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2017-01-25
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 359-384
- ISSN
- 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
- 1991-9603
- OpenAlex
- W2382091334
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 153
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017
- The paper
- Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., & Watanabe, M. (2017). The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6. Geoscientific Model Development. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017
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.