Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4634
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4634
15 Oct 2025
 | 15 Oct 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Advancements and continued challenges in global modelling and observations of atmospheric ice masses

Patrick Eriksson, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Nils Müller, Hanna Hallborn, Eleanor May, Manfred Brath, Stefan A. Buehler, and Luisa Ickes

Abstract. We assess the current status of atmospheric ice mass estimates by comparing global circulation models and global storm-resolving models with satellite observations. The analysis focuses on the frozen water path, which offers a more consistent measure across modelling and observational datasets than cloud ice or other partial quantities. As a reference, we use three retrievals derived from the CloudSat mission. Despite being based on the same input data, these retrievals exhibit a significant spread, and we estimate the uncertainty in overall means to be as high as 40 %. A recently developed machine learning product based on passive observations highly extends spatial and temporal coverage for comparisons, but its accuracy is limited by biases inherited from its training dataset.

The latest generation of global circulation models systematically underestimates frozen water paths compared to the observational benchmark. While the spread among models has narrowed relative to earlier assessments, they still fail to provide consistent representations of regional temporal changes or the annual cycle. Storm-resolving models, which operate at finer grid spacing and resolve convective dynamics explicitly, show a better representation of total ice masses, with a variation among them that's similar to the observational uncertainty. However, several issues were noted, such as apparent deviations from the observations in the spatial structures of tropical deep convection, and that they differ significantly in their relative amounts of cloud ice, snow, and graupel. Together, these findings reveal progress but highlight continuing uncertainties that limit confidence in projections of cloud-related climate feedbacks.

Competing interests: One co-author (Luisa Ickes) is is a member of the editorial board of ACP.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Patrick Eriksson, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Nils Müller, Hanna Hallborn, Eleanor May, Manfred Brath, Stefan A. Buehler, and Luisa Ickes

Status: open (until 26 Nov 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Patrick Eriksson, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Nils Müller, Hanna Hallborn, Eleanor May, Manfred Brath, Stefan A. Buehler, and Luisa Ickes
Patrick Eriksson, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Nils Müller, Hanna Hallborn, Eleanor May, Manfred Brath, Stefan A. Buehler, and Luisa Ickes
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 15 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
Our study shows that accurately representing atmospheric ice masses remains a major challenge. We compared climate models to satellite data, finding that conventional models consistently underestimate the amount of ice. While new, higher-resolution models perform better, both models and observations still have significant discrepancies. These shortcomings limit our confidence in cloud-related climate feedbacks, which are critical for our predictions of the future climate.
Share