Home News About Us Contact Contributors Disclaimer Privacy Policy Help FAQ

Home
Search
Quick Search
Advanced
Fulltext
Browse
Collections
Persons
My eDoc
Session History
Login
Name:
Password:
Documentation
Help
Support Wiki
Direct access to
document ID:


          Institute: MPI für Meteorologie     Collection: Atmosphere in the Earth System     Display Documents



  history
ID: 174061.0, MPI für Meteorologie / Atmosphere in the Earth System
Monthly averages of aerosol properties: A global comparison among models, satellite data, and AERONET ground data
Authors:Kinne, Stefan; Lohmann, Ulrike; Feichter, Johann; Schulz, M.; Timmreck, Claudia; Ghan, S.; Easter, R.; Chin, M.; Ginoux, P.; Takemura, T.; Tegen, I.; Koch, D.; Herzog, Michael; Penner, J.; Pitari, G.; Holben, B.; Eck, T.; Smirnov, A.; Dubovik, O.; Slutsker, I.; Tanre, D.; Torres, O.; Mishchenko, M.; Geogdzhayev, I.; Chu, D. A.; Kaufman, Y.
Language:English
Date of Publication (YYYY-MM-DD):2003-10-21
Title of Journal:Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres
Journal Abbrev.:J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.
Volume:108
Issue / Number:D20
Sequence Number of Article:4634
Review Status:Peer-review
Audience:Not Specified
Abstract / Description:New aerosol modules of global ( circulation and chemical transport) models are evaluated. These new modules distinguish among at least five aerosol components: sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, sea salt, and dust. Monthly and regionally averaged predictions for aerosol mass and aerosol optical depth are compared. Differences among models are significant for all aerosol types. The largest differences were found near expected source regions of biomass burning ( carbon) and dust. Assumptions for the permitted water uptake also contribute to optical depth differences ( of sulfate, organic carbon, and sea salt) at higher latitudes. The decline of mass or optical depth away from recognized sources reveals strong differences in aerosol transport or removal among models. These differences are also a function of altitude, as transport biases of dust do not always extend to other aerosol types. Ratios of optical depth and mass demonstrate large differences in the mass extinction efficiency, even for hydrophobic aerosol. This suggests that efforts of good mass simulations could be wasted or that conversions are misused to cover for poor mass simulations. In an attempt to provide an absolute measure for model skill, simulated total optical depths ( when adding contributions from all five aerosol types) are compared to measurements from ground and space. Comparisons to the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) suggest a source strength underestimate in many models, most frequently for ( subtropical) tropical biomass or dust. Comparisons to the combined best of Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer ( MODIS) and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer ( TOMS) indicate that away from sources, model simulations are usually smaller. Particularly large are discrepancies over tropical oceans and oceans of the Southern Hemisphere, raising issues on the treatment of sea salt in models. Totals for mass or optical depth in many models are defined by the absence or dominance of only one aerosol component. With appropriate corrections to that component ( e. g., to removal, to source strength, or to seasonality) a much better model performance can be expected. Still, many important modeling issues remain inconclusive as the combined result of poor coordination ( different emissions and meteorology), insufficient model output ( vertical distributions, water uptake by aerosol type), and unresolved measurement issues ( retrieval assumptions and temporal or spatial sampling biases).
Comment of the Author/Creator:Date: 2003, OCT 21
External Publication Status:published
Document Type:Article
Communicated by:Carola Kauhs
Affiliations:MPI für Meteorologie/The Atmosphere in the Earth System
External Affiliations:Max Planck Inst Meteorol, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany.; Dalhousie Univ, Dept Phys, Atmospher Sci Program, Halifax, NS B3H 3J5, Canada.; CEA, CNRS, LSCE, F-91191 Gif Sur Yvette, France.; Battelle Mem Inst, Pacific NW Natl Lab, Richland, WA 99352 USA.; NASA, GIT, Goddard Space Flight Ctr, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA.; NOAA, Geophys Fluid Dynam Lab, Princeton, NJ 08542 USA.; Kyushu Univ, Appl Mech Res Inst, Fukuoka 8168580, Japan.; Max Planck Inst Biogeochem, D-07745 Jena, Germany.; Columbia Univ, Dept Appl Phys & Appl Math, NASA, Goddard Inst Space Studies, New York, NY 10025 USA.; Univ Michigan, Dept Atmospher Ocean & Space Sci, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.; Univ Aquila, Dipartimento Fis, I-67010 Coppito, Laquila, Italy.; Univ Maryland Baltimore Cty, Goddard Earth Sci & Technol Ctr, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Ctr, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA.; Univ Lille 1, Opt Atmospher Lab, F-59655 Villeneuve Dascq, France.; Univ Maryland Baltimore Cty, Joint Ctr Earth Syst Technol, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Ctr, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA.
Identifiers:ISI:000186198500001
ISSN:0148-0227
DOI:10.1029/2001JD001253
The scope and number of records on eDoc is subject to the collection policies defined by each institute - see "info" button in the collection browse view.