MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161205508 · doi:10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014

The AeroCom evaluation and intercomparison of organic aerosol in global models

2014· article· en· W2161205508 on OpenAlexaff
Kostas Tsigaridis, Nikos Daskalakis, Maria Kanakidou, P. J. Adams, Paulo Artaxo, Ranjit Prasad Bahadur, Yves Balkanski, Susanne E. Bauer, Nicolas Bellouin, Angela Benedetti, Tommi Bergman, Terje K. Berntsen, Johan P. Beukes, Huisheng Bian, K. S. Carslaw, Mian Chin, Gabriele Curci, T. Diehl, R. C. Easter, S. J. Ghan, Sunling Gong, Alma Hodžić, C. R. Hoyle, Trond Iversen, Shantanu H. Jathar, J. L. Jiménez, Johannes W. Kaiser, Alf Kirkevåg, D. Koch, Harri Kokkola, Y. H Lee, Guangxing Lin, Xiaohong Liu, Gan Luo, Xiaoyan Ma, G. W. Mann, N. Mihalopoulos, J.-J. Morcrette, Jean‐François Müller, Gunnar Myhre, Stelios Myriokefalitakis, N. L. Ng, Declan O’Donnell, Joyce E. Penner, Luca Pozzoli, K. J. Pringle, Lynn M. Russell, Michael Schulz, Jean Sciare, Øyvind Seland, Drew Shindell, Sanford Sillman, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Dominick V. Spracklen, T. Stavrakou, Stephen D. Steenrod, Toshihiko Takemura, Petri Tiitta, Simone Tilmes, Holger Tost, Twan van Noije, Pieter G. van Zyl, Knut von Salzen, Fangqun Yu, Zhili Wang, R. A. Zaveri, H. Zhang, Kai Zhang, Qi Zhang, X. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryPacific Northwest National LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilGoddard Space Flight CenterOffice of ScienceNorges ForskningsrådCabinet Office, Government of JapanSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSight Research UKUniversity Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchBattelleDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMet OfficeDeutsches KlimarechenzentrumNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAerosolEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper evaluates the current status of global modeling of the organic aerosol (OA) in the troposphere and analyzes the differences between models as well as between models and observations. Thirty-one global chemistry transport models (CTMs) and general circulation models (GCMs) have participated in this intercomparison, in the framework of AeroCom phase II. The simulation of OA varies greatly between models in terms of the magnitude of primary emissions, secondary OA (SOA) formation, the number of OA species used (2 to 62), the complexity of OA parameterizations (gas-particle partitioning, chemical aging, multiphase chemistry, aerosol microphysics), and the OA physical, chemical and optical properties. The diversity of the global OA simulation results has increased since earlier AeroCom experiments, mainly due to the increasing complexity of the SOA parameterization in models, and the implementation of new, highly uncertain, OA sources. Diversity of over one order of magnitude exists in the modeled vertical distribution of OA concentrations that deserves a dedicated future study. Furthermore, although the OA / OC ratio depends on OA sources and atmospheric processing, and is important for model evaluation against OA and OC observations, it is resolved only by a few global models. The median global primary OA (POA) source strength is 56 Tg a−1 (range 34–144 Tg a−1) and the median SOA source strength (natural and anthropogenic) is 19 Tg a−1 (range 13–121 Tg a−1). Among the models that take into account the semi-volatile SOA nature, the median source is calculated to be 51 Tg a−1 (range 16–121 Tg a−1), much larger than the median value of the models that calculate SOA in a more simplistic way (19 Tg a−1; range 13–20 Tg a−1, with one model at 37 Tg a−1). The median atmospheric burden of OA is 1.4 Tg (24 models in the range of 0.6–2.0 Tg and 4 between 2.0 and 3.8 Tg), with a median OA lifetime of 5.4 days (range 3.8–9.6 days). In models that reported both OA and sulfate burdens, the median value of the OA/sulfate burden ratio is calculated to be 0.77; 13 models calculate a ratio lower than 1, and 9 models higher than 1. For 26 models that reported OA deposition fluxes, the median wet removal is 70 Tg a−1 (range 28–209 Tg a−1), which is on average 85% of the total OA deposition. Fine aerosol organic carbon (OC) and OA observations from continuous monitoring networks and individual field campaigns have been used for model evaluation. At urban locations, the model–observation comparison indicates missing knowledge on anthropogenic OA sources, both strength and seasonality. The combined model–measurements analysis suggests the existence of increased OA levels during summer due to biogenic SOA formation over large areas of the USA that can be of the same order of magnitude as the POA, even at urban locations, and contribute to the measured urban seasonal pattern. Global models are able to simulate the high secondary character of OA observed in the atmosphere as a result of SOA formation and POA aging, although the amount of OA present in the atmosphere remains largely underestimated, with a mean normalized bias (MNB) equal to −0.62 (−0.51) based on the comparison against OC (OA) urban data of all models at the surface, −0.15 (+0.51) when compared with remote measurements, and −0.30 for marine locations with OC data. The mean temporal correlations across all stations are low when compared with OC (OA) measurements: 0.47 (0.52) for urban stations, 0.39 (0.37) for remote stations, and 0.25 for marine stations with OC data. The combination of high (negative) MNB and higher correlation at urban stations when compared with the low MNB and lower correlation at remote sites suggests that knowledge about the processes that govern aerosol processing, transport and removal, on top of their sources, is important at the remote stations. There is no clear change in model skill with increasing model complexity with regard to OC or OA mass concentration. However, the complexity is needed in models in order to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural OA as needed for climate mitigation, and to calculate the impact of OA on climate accurately.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations536
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207