Articles | Volume 6, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1745-2013
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1745-2013
Model description paper
 | 
23 Oct 2013
Model description paper |  | 23 Oct 2013

Scheme for calculation of multi-layer cloudiness and precipitation for climate models of intermediate complexity

A. V. Eliseev, D. Coumou, A. V. Chernokulsky, V. Petoukhov, and S. Petri

Related authors

Subsea permafrost and associated methane hydrates: how long will they survive in the future?
Valentina V. Malakhova and Alexey V. Eliseev
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-99,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-99, 2022
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
ChAP 1.0: a stationary tropospheric sulfur cycle for Earth system models of intermediate complexity
Alexey V. Eliseev, Rustam D. Gizatullin, and Alexandr V. Timazhev
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7725–7747, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7725-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2
Andrew H. MacDougall, Thomas L. Frölicher, Chris D. Jones, Joeri Rogelj, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld, Vivek K. Arora, Noah J. Barrett, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Micheal Eby, Alexey V. Eliseev, Tomohiro Hajima, Philip B. Holden, Aurich Jeltsch-Thömmes, Charles Koven, Nadine Mengis, Laurie Menviel, Martine Michou, Igor I. Mokhov, Akira Oka, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Gary Shaffer, Andrei Sokolov, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry Tjiputra, Andrew Wiltshire, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 2987–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, 2020
Short summary
The dynamical core of the Aeolus 1.0 statistical–dynamical atmosphere model: validation and parameter optimization
Sonja Totz, Alexey V. Eliseev, Stefan Petri, Michael Flechsig, Levke Caesar, Vladimir Petoukhov, and Dim Coumou
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 665–679, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-665-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-665-2018, 2018
How sensitive are modeled contemporary subsea permafrost thaw and thickness of the methane clathrates stability zone in Eurasian Arctic to assumptions on Pleistocene glacial cycles?
Valentina V. Malakhova and Alexey V. Eliseev
Clim. Past Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2016-66,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2016-66, 2016
Manuscript not accepted for further review

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
A diffusion-based kernel density estimator (diffKDE, version 1) with optimal bandwidth approximation for the analysis of data in geoscience and ecological research
Maria-Theresia Pelz, Markus Schartau, Christopher J. Somes, Vanessa Lampe, and Thomas Slawig
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6609–6634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6609-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6609-2023, 2023
Short summary
Monte Carlo drift correction – quantifying the drift uncertainty of global climate models
Benjamin S. Grandey, Zhi Yang Koh, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Benjamin P. Horton, Justin Dauwels, and Lock Yue Chew
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6593–6608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6593-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6593-2023, 2023
Short summary
Improvements in the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) through systematic model analysis: CanESM5.0 and CanESM5.1
Michael Sigmond, James Anstey, Vivek Arora, Ruth Digby, Nathan Gillett, Viatcheslav Kharin, William Merryfield, Catherine Reader, John Scinocca, Neil Swart, John Virgin, Carsten Abraham, Jason Cole, Nicolas Lambert, Woo-Sung Lee, Yongxiao Liang, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, Knut von Salzen, Christian Seiler, Clint Seinen, Andrew Shao, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Libo Wang, and Duo Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6553–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Earth System Model Aerosol–Cloud Diagnostics (ESMAC Diags) package, version 2: assessing aerosols, clouds, and aerosol–cloud interactions via field campaign and long-term observations
Shuaiqi Tang, Adam C. Varble, Jerome D. Fast, Kai Zhang, Peng Wu, Xiquan Dong, Fan Mei, Mikhail Pekour, Joseph C. Hardin, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6355–6376, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6355-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6355-2023, 2023
Short summary
CIOFC1.0: a common parallel input/output framework based on C-Coupler2.0
Xinzhu Yu, Li Liu, Chao Sun, Qingu Jiang, Biao Zhao, Zhiyuan Zhang, Hao Yu, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6285–6308, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6285-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6285-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Albrecht, B.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989.
Bauer, E., Petoukhov, V., Ganopolski, A., and Eliseev, A.: Climatic response to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols versus well-mixed greenhouse gases from 1850 to 2000 AD in CLIMBER-2, Tellus, 60B, 82–97, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00318.x, 2008.
Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V., Allan, R., Bretherton, C., J.-L., D., Hall, A., Hallegatte, S., Holland, M., Ingram, W., Randall, D., Soden, B., Tselioudis, G., and Webb, M.: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes?, J. Climate, 19, 3445–3482, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3819.1, 2006.
Cesana, G. and Chepfer, H.: How well do climate models simulate cloud vertical structure? A comparison between CALIPSO}-{GOCCP satellite observations and CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L20803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053153, 2012.
Charlson, R., Schwartz, S., Hales, J., Cess, R., Coackley, J., Hansen, J., and Hofmann, D.: Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols, Science, 255, 423–430, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.255.5043.423, 1992.
Download