Temperature and humidity biases in global climate models and their impact on climate feedbacks

135 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Process-evaluation of tropospheric humidity simulated by general circulation models using water vapor isotopologues: 1. Comparison between models and observations (2012, background): “This bias has been noticed in many GCMs for more than a decade [Soden and Bretherton, 1994; Roca et al., 1997; Allan et al., 2003; Brogniez et al., 2005; Pierce et al., 2006; John and Soden, 2007; Chung et al., 2011].”
Description and validation of a two-step analogue/regression downscaling method (2013, background): “In addition, GCMs currently have problems simulating moisture (Hu et al. 2005; John and Soden 2007), partly due to low spatial resolution (Räisänen 2007).”
Quantifying Progress Across Different CMIP Phases With the ESMValTool (2020, background): “Prominent, well ‐ known biases in the simulated vertical temperature distribution throughout all CMIP phases include a cold bias of several K in the extratropical upper troposphere at around 200 hPa andawarmbiasofabout1 – 2Kinthetropicsatabout100hPa(John&Soden,2007).”
Reanalyses Suitable for Characterizing Long-Term Trends (2010, background): “For example, in many models, the troposphere has a substantial cold bias (John and Soden 2007).”
Tropospheric water vapor, convection, and climate (2010, background): “The feedback seems to be unaffected by biases in simulated humidity, which vary among models [John and Soden, 2007].”