Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
MICS Asia Phase II—Sensitivity to the aerosol module
AbstractIn the framework of the model intercomparison study—Asia Phase II (MICS2), where eight models are compared over East Asia, this paper studies the influence of different parameterizations used in the aerosol module on the aerosol concentrations of sulfate and nitrate in .An intracomparison of aerosol concentrations is done for March 2001 using different configurations of the aerosol module of one of the model used for the intercomparison. Single modifications of a reference setup for model configurations are performed and compared to a reference case. These modifications concern the size distribution, i.e. the number of sections, and physical processes, i.e. coagulation, condensation/evaporation, cloud chemistry, heterogeneous reactions and sea-salt emissions.Comparing monthly averaged concentrations at different stations, the importance of each parameterization is first assessed. It is found that sulfate concentrations are little sensitive to sea-salt emissions and to whether condensation is computed dynamically or by assuming thermodynamic equilibrium. Nitrate concentrations are little sensitive to cloud chemistry. However, a very high sensitivity to heterogeneous reactions is observed.Thereafter, the variability of the aerosol concentrations to the use of different chemistry transport models (CTMs) and the variability to the use of different parameterizations in the aerosol module are compared. For sulfate, the variability to the use of different parameterizations in the aerosol module is lower than the variability to the use of different CTMs. However, for nitrate, for monthly averaged concentrations averaged over four stations, these two variabilities have the same order of magnitude.
MICS Asia Phase II—Sensitivity to the aerosol module
AbstractIn the framework of the model intercomparison study—Asia Phase II (MICS2), where eight models are compared over East Asia, this paper studies the influence of different parameterizations used in the aerosol module on the aerosol concentrations of sulfate and nitrate in .An intracomparison of aerosol concentrations is done for March 2001 using different configurations of the aerosol module of one of the model used for the intercomparison. Single modifications of a reference setup for model configurations are performed and compared to a reference case. These modifications concern the size distribution, i.e. the number of sections, and physical processes, i.e. coagulation, condensation/evaporation, cloud chemistry, heterogeneous reactions and sea-salt emissions.Comparing monthly averaged concentrations at different stations, the importance of each parameterization is first assessed. It is found that sulfate concentrations are little sensitive to sea-salt emissions and to whether condensation is computed dynamically or by assuming thermodynamic equilibrium. Nitrate concentrations are little sensitive to cloud chemistry. However, a very high sensitivity to heterogeneous reactions is observed.Thereafter, the variability of the aerosol concentrations to the use of different chemistry transport models (CTMs) and the variability to the use of different parameterizations in the aerosol module are compared. For sulfate, the variability to the use of different parameterizations in the aerosol module is lower than the variability to the use of different CTMs. However, for nitrate, for monthly averaged concentrations averaged over four stations, these two variabilities have the same order of magnitude.
MICS Asia Phase II—Sensitivity to the aerosol module
Sartelet, K.N. (Autor:in) / Hayami, H. (Autor:in) / Sportisse, B. (Autor:in)
Atmospheric Environment ; 42 ; 3562-3570
05.03.2007
9 pages
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
MICS-Asia II: The model intercomparison study for Asia phase II
Elsevier | 2007
|MICS-Asia II: Impact of global emissions on regional air quality in Asia
Elsevier | 2007
|MICS-Asia II: Model inter-comparison and evaluation of acid deposition
Elsevier | 2007
|