Articles | Volume 14, issue 2
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 935–959, 2021
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 935–959, 2021

Model evaluation paper 12 Feb 2021

Model evaluation paper | 12 Feb 2021

Evaluation of polar stratospheric clouds in the global chemistry–climate model SOCOLv3.1 by comparison with CALIPSO spaceborne lidar measurements

Michael Steiner et al.

Related authors

Mountain-wave induced polar stratospheric clouds and their representation in the global chemistry model ICON-ART
Michael Weimer, Jennifer Buchmüller, Lars Hoffmann, Ole Kirner, Beiping Luo, Roland Ruhnke, Michael Steiner, Ines Tritscher, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.,,, 2020
Revised manuscript under review for ACP
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
A process-based evaluation of the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model (ICAR) 1.0.1
Johannes Horak, Marlis Hofer, Ethan Gutmann, Alexander Gohm, and Mathias W. Rotach
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1657–1680,,, 2021
Short summary
Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMv1.0 atmosphere model
Yong Wang, Guang J. Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, George C. Craig, Qi Tang, and Hsi-Yen Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1575–1593,,, 2021
Short summary
Sensitivity of surface solar radiation to aerosol–radiation and aerosol–cloud interactions over Europe in WRFv3.6.1 climatic runs with fully interactive aerosols
Sonia Jerez, Laura Palacios-Peña, Claudia Gutiérrez, Pedro Jiménez-Guerrero, Jose María López-Romero, Enrique Pravia-Sarabia, and Juan Pedro Montávez
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1533–1551,,, 2021
Short summary
Evaluation of regional climate models ALARO-0 and REMO2015 at 0.22° resolution over the CORDEX Central Asia domain
Sara Top, Lola Kotova, Lesley De Cruz, Svetlana Aniskevich, Leonid Bobylev, Rozemien De Troch, Natalia Gnatiuk, Anne Gobin, Rafiq Hamdi, Arne Kriegsmann, Armelle Reca Remedio, Abdulla Sakalli, Hans Van De Vyver, Bert Van Schaeybroeck, Viesturs Zandersons, Philippe De Maeyer, Piet Termonia, and Steven Caluwaerts
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1267–1293,,, 2021
Short summary
Using the anomaly forcing Community Land Model (CLM 4.5) for crop yield projections
Yaqiong Lu and Xianyu Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1253–1265,,, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Akiyoshi, H., Zhou, L. B., Yamashita, Y., Sakamoto, K., Yoshiki, M., Nagashima, T., Takahashi, M., Kurokawa, J., Takigawa, M., and Imamura, T.: A CCM simulation of the breakup of the Antarctic polar vortex in the years 1980–2004 under the CCMVal scenarios, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D03103,, 2009. a
Biele, J., Tsias, A., Luo, B. P., Carslaw, K. S., Neuber, R., Beyerle, G., and Peter, T.: Nonequilibrium coexistence of solid and liquid particles in Arctic stratospheric clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 22991–23007,, 2001. a, b
Brühl, C., Steil, B., Stiller, G., Funke, B., and Jöckel, P.: Nitrogen compounds and ozone in the stratosphere: comparison of MIPAS satellite data with the chemistry climate model ECHAM5/MESSy1, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5585–5598,, 2007. a
Carslaw, K. S., Luo, B. P., and Peter, T.: An analytic expression for the composition of aqueous HNO3−H2SO4 stratospheric aerosols including gas-phase removal of HNO3, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1877–1880,, 1995. a, b
Carslaw, K. S., Peter, T., Bacmeister, J. T., and Eckermann, S. D.: Widespread solid particle formation by mountain waves in the Arctic stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 1827–1836,, 1999. a
Short summary
We evaluate polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as simulated by the chemistry–climate model (CCM) SOCOLv3.1 in comparison with measurements by the CALIPSO satellite. A cold bias results in an overestimated PSC area and mountain-wave ice is underestimated, but we find overall good temporal and spatial agreement of PSC occurrence and composition. This work confirms previous studies indicating that simplified PSC schemes may also achieve good approximations of the fundamental properties of PSCs.