Articles | Volume 16, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15413-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15413-2016
Research article
 | 
13 Dec 2016
Research article |  | 13 Dec 2016

The source of discrepancies in aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions between GCM and A-Train retrievals

Takuro Michibata, Kentaroh Suzuki, Yousuke Sato, and Toshihiko Takemura

Viewed

Total article views: 4,966 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
2,904 1,518 544 4,966 115 124
  • HTML: 2,904
  • PDF: 1,518
  • XML: 544
  • Total: 4,966
  • BibTeX: 115
  • EndNote: 124
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Sep 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Sep 2016)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,966 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,941 with geography defined and 25 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 02 Apr 2025
Download
Short summary
This study identifies a fundamental flaw of a GCM in aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions. The model predicts a monotonic increase in the LWP in response to increased aerosols, which is in stark contrast to satellite retrievals that show a regional variation in the sign of the LWP response. The model also fails to represent the observed dependency of the LWP response on macrophysical regimes. The model biases are attributed to the autoconversion process, with a lack of buffering mechanisms.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint