MozartV1, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 000142

Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate

Identifieur interne : 000142 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000141; suivant : 000143

Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate

Auteurs : Paul Ginoux ; Larry W. Horowitz ; V. Ramaswamy ; Igor V. Geogdzhayev ; Brent N. Holben ; Georgiy Stenchikov ; XUEXI TIE

Source :

Journal of geophysical research [ 0148-0227 ] ; 2006.

RBID : Pascal:07-0068470

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Aérosol, Epaisseur optique, Dynamique fluide géophysique, Modèle climat, Climat, Résistance mécanique, Concentration, Sulfate, Carbone organique, Suie, Poussière, Sel marin, Aluminium, Humidité relative, Extinction, Long terme, Télédétection, Modélisation, Satellite, Monde, Echelon régional, Feu végétation, Océan Antarctique, Croissance, Propriété optique, Etats Unis, Mers Antarctiques.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Antarctic Ocean, Antarctic Seas, Climate models, Geophysical fluid dynamics, Long term, Modeling, Optical thickness, Regional scope, Relative humidity, Sea salt, Soot, United States, Vegetation fire, aerosols, aluminum, climate, concentration, dust, extinction, global, growth, optical properties, organic carbon, remote sensing, satellites, strength, sulfates.

Abstract

[1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 0148-0227`
A03		`1`		`@0 J. geophys. res.`
A05				`@2 111`
A06				`@2 D22`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 GINOUX (Paul)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 HOROWITZ (Larry W.)`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 RAMASWAMY (V.)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 GEOGDZHAYEV (Igor V.)`
A11	`05`	`1`		`@1 HOLBEN (Brent N.)`
A11	`06`	`1`		`@1 STENCHIKOV (Georgiy)`
A11	`07`	`1`		`@1 XUEXI TIE`
A14	`01`			`@1 NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory @2 Princeton, New Jersey @3 USA @Z 1 aut. @Z 2 aut. @Z 3 aut.`
A14	`02`			`@1 Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies @2 New York, New York @3 USA @Z 4 aut.`
A14	`03`			`@1 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center @2 Greenbelt, Maryland @3 USA @Z 5 aut.`
A14	`04`			`@1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey @2 New Brunswick, New Jersey @3 USA @Z 6 aut.`
A14	`05`			`@1 National Center for Atmospheric Research @2 Boulder, Colorado @3 USA @Z 7 aut.`
A20				`@2 D22210.1-D22210.21`
A21				`@1 2006`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 3144 @5 354000145308520290`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2007 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 1 p.1/4`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 07-0068470`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 Journal of geophysical research`
A66	`01`			`@0 USA`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 [1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.
C02	`01`	`2`		`@0 220`
C02	`02`	`3`		`@0 001E`
C02	`03`	`2`		`@0 001E01`
C03	`01`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Aérosol @5 01`
C03	`01`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 aerosols @5 01`
C03	`01`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Aerosol @5 01`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Epaisseur optique @5 02`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Optical thickness @5 02`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Espesor óptico @5 02`
C03	`03`	`3`	`FRE`	`@0 Dynamique fluide géophysique @5 03`
C03	`03`	`3`	`ENG`	`@0 Geophysical fluid dynamics @5 03`
C03	`04`	`3`	`FRE`	`@0 Modèle climat @5 04`
C03	`04`	`3`	`ENG`	`@0 Climate models @5 04`
C03	`05`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Climat @5 05`
C03	`05`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 climate @5 05`
C03	`05`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Clima @5 05`
C03	`06`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Résistance mécanique @5 06`
C03	`06`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 strength @5 06`
C03	`06`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Resistencia mecánica @5 06`
C03	`07`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Concentration @5 07`
C03	`07`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 concentration @5 07`
C03	`07`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Concentración @5 07`
C03	`08`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Sulfate @5 08`
C03	`08`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 sulfates @5 08`
C03	`08`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Sulfato @5 08`
C03	`09`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Carbone organique @5 09`
C03	`09`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 organic carbon @5 09`
C03	`09`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Carbono orgánico @5 09`
C03	`10`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Suie @5 10`
C03	`10`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Soot @5 10`
C03	`10`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Hollín @5 10`
C03	`11`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Poussière @5 11`
C03	`11`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 dust @5 11`
C03	`11`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Polvo @5 11`
C03	`12`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Sel marin @5 12`
C03	`12`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Sea salt @5 12`
C03	`12`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Sal marina @5 12`
C03	`13`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Aluminium @5 13`
C03	`13`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 aluminum @5 13`
C03	`13`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Aluminio @5 13`
C03	`14`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Humidité relative @5 14`
C03	`14`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Relative humidity @5 14`
C03	`14`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Humedad relativa @5 14`
C03	`15`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Extinction @5 15`
C03	`15`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 extinction @5 15`
C03	`15`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Extinción @5 15`
C03	`16`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Long terme @5 16`
C03	`16`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Long term @5 16`
C03	`16`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Largo plazo @5 16`
C03	`17`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Télédétection @5 17`
C03	`17`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 remote sensing @5 17`
C03	`17`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Detección a distancia @5 17`
C03	`18`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Modélisation @5 18`
C03	`18`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Modeling @5 18`
C03	`18`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Modelización @5 18`
C03	`19`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Satellite @5 19`
C03	`19`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 satellites @5 19`
C03	`19`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Satélite @5 19`
C03	`20`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Monde @5 20`
C03	`20`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 global @5 20`
C03	`20`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Mundo @5 20`
C03	`21`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Echelon régional @5 21`
C03	`21`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Regional scope @5 21`
C03	`21`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Escala regional @5 21`
C03	`22`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Feu végétation @5 22`
C03	`22`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Vegetation fire @5 22`
C03	`22`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Fuego vegetación @5 22`
C03	`23`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Océan Antarctique @5 23`
C03	`23`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 Antarctic Ocean @5 23`
C03	`24`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Croissance @5 24`
C03	`24`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 growth @5 24`
C03	`25`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Propriété optique @5 25`
C03	`25`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 optical properties @5 25`
C03	`25`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Propiedad óptica @5 25`
C03	`26`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Etats Unis @2 NG @5 61`
C03	`26`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 United States @2 NG @5 61`
C03	`26`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Estados Unidos @2 NG @5 61`
C03	`27`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Mers Antarctiques @5 62`
C03	`27`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 Antarctic Seas @5 62`
C03	`27`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 Mares antárticos @5 62`
C07	`01`	`2`	`FRE`	`@0 Amérique du Nord`
C07	`01`	`2`	`ENG`	`@0 North America`
C07	`01`	`2`	`SPA`	`@0 America del norte`
N21				`@1 043`
N44	`01`			`@1 OTO`
N82				`@1 OTO`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 07-0068470 INIST
ET :	Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate
AU :	GINOUX (Paul); HOROWITZ (Larry W.); RAMASWAMY (V.); GEOGDZHAYEV (Igor V.); HOLBEN (Brent N.); STENCHIKOV (Georgiy); XUEXI TIE
AF :	NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/Princeton, New Jersey/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 3 aut.); Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies/New York, New York/Etats-Unis (4 aut.); NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Greenbelt, Maryland/Etats-Unis (5 aut.); Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey/New Brunswick, New Jersey/Etats-Unis (6 aut.); National Center for Atmospheric Research/Boulder, Colorado/Etats-Unis (7 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	Journal of geophysical research; ISSN 0148-0227; Etats-Unis; Da. 2006; Vol. 111; No. D22; D22210.1-D22210.21; Bibl. 1 p.1/4
LA :	Anglais
EA :	[1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.
CC :	220; 001E; 001E01
FD :	Aérosol; Epaisseur optique; Dynamique fluide géophysique; Modèle climat; Climat; Résistance mécanique; Concentration; Sulfate; Carbone organique; Suie; Poussière; Sel marin; Aluminium; Humidité relative; Extinction; Long terme; Télédétection; Modélisation; Satellite; Monde; Echelon régional; Feu végétation; Océan Antarctique; Croissance; Propriété optique; Etats Unis; Mers Antarctiques
FG :	Amérique du Nord
ED :	aerosols; Optical thickness; Geophysical fluid dynamics; Climate models; climate; strength; concentration; sulfates; organic carbon; Soot; dust; Sea salt; aluminum; Relative humidity; extinction; Long term; remote sensing; Modeling; satellites; global; Regional scope; Vegetation fire; Antarctic Ocean; growth; optical properties; United States; Antarctic Seas
EG :	North America
SD :	Aerosol; Espesor óptico; Clima; Resistencia mecánica; Concentración; Sulfato; Carbono orgánico; Hollín; Polvo; Sal marina; Aluminio; Humedad relativa; Extinción; Largo plazo; Detección a distancia; Modelización; Satélite; Mundo; Escala regional; Fuego vegetación; Propiedad óptica; Estados Unidos; Mares antárticos
LO :	INIST-3144.354000145308520290
ID :	07-0068470

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:07-0068470

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate</title>
<author><name sortKey="Ginoux, Paul" sort="Ginoux, Paul" uniqKey="Ginoux P" first="Paul" last="Ginoux">Paul Ginoux</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Horowitz, Larry W" sort="Horowitz, Larry W" uniqKey="Horowitz L" first="Larry W." last="Horowitz">Larry W. Horowitz</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ramaswamy, V" sort="Ramaswamy, V" uniqKey="Ramaswamy V" first="V." last="Ramaswamy">V. Ramaswamy</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Geogdzhayev, Igor V" sort="Geogdzhayev, Igor V" uniqKey="Geogdzhayev I" first="Igor V." last="Geogdzhayev">Igor V. Geogdzhayev</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies</s1>
<s2>New York, New York</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Holben, Brent N" sort="Holben, Brent N" uniqKey="Holben B" first="Brent N." last="Holben">Brent N. Holben</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center</s1>
<s2>Greenbelt, Maryland</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Stenchikov, Georgiy" sort="Stenchikov, Georgiy" uniqKey="Stenchikov G" first="Georgiy" last="Stenchikov">Georgiy Stenchikov</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey</s1>
<s2>New Brunswick, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Xuexi Tie" sort="Xuexi Tie" uniqKey="Xuexi Tie" last="Xuexi Tie">XUEXI TIE</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="05"><s1>National Center for Atmospheric Research</s1>
<s2>Boulder, Colorado</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">07-0068470</idno>
<date when="2006">2006</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 07-0068470 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:07-0068470</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000142</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate</title>
<author><name sortKey="Ginoux, Paul" sort="Ginoux, Paul" uniqKey="Ginoux P" first="Paul" last="Ginoux">Paul Ginoux</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Horowitz, Larry W" sort="Horowitz, Larry W" uniqKey="Horowitz L" first="Larry W." last="Horowitz">Larry W. Horowitz</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ramaswamy, V" sort="Ramaswamy, V" uniqKey="Ramaswamy V" first="V." last="Ramaswamy">V. Ramaswamy</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Geogdzhayev, Igor V" sort="Geogdzhayev, Igor V" uniqKey="Geogdzhayev I" first="Igor V." last="Geogdzhayev">Igor V. Geogdzhayev</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies</s1>
<s2>New York, New York</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Holben, Brent N" sort="Holben, Brent N" uniqKey="Holben B" first="Brent N." last="Holben">Brent N. Holben</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center</s1>
<s2>Greenbelt, Maryland</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Stenchikov, Georgiy" sort="Stenchikov, Georgiy" uniqKey="Stenchikov G" first="Georgiy" last="Stenchikov">Georgiy Stenchikov</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey</s1>
<s2>New Brunswick, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Xuexi Tie" sort="Xuexi Tie" uniqKey="Xuexi Tie" last="Xuexi Tie">XUEXI TIE</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="05"><s1>National Center for Atmospheric Research</s1>
<s2>Boulder, Colorado</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of geophysical research</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. geophys. res.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0148-0227</idno>
<imprint><date when="2006">2006</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Journal of geophysical research</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. geophys. res.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0148-0227</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Antarctic Ocean</term>
<term>Antarctic Seas</term>
<term>Climate models</term>
<term>Geophysical fluid dynamics</term>
<term>Long term</term>
<term>Modeling</term>
<term>Optical thickness</term>
<term>Regional scope</term>
<term>Relative humidity</term>
<term>Sea salt</term>
<term>Soot</term>
<term>United States</term>
<term>Vegetation fire</term>
<term>aerosols</term>
<term>aluminum</term>
<term>climate</term>
<term>concentration</term>
<term>dust</term>
<term>extinction</term>
<term>global</term>
<term>growth</term>
<term>optical properties</term>
<term>organic carbon</term>
<term>remote sensing</term>
<term>satellites</term>
<term>strength</term>
<term>sulfates</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Aérosol</term>
<term>Epaisseur optique</term>
<term>Dynamique fluide géophysique</term>
<term>Modèle climat</term>
<term>Climat</term>
<term>Résistance mécanique</term>
<term>Concentration</term>
<term>Sulfate</term>
<term>Carbone organique</term>
<term>Suie</term>
<term>Poussière</term>
<term>Sel marin</term>
<term>Aluminium</term>
<term>Humidité relative</term>
<term>Extinction</term>
<term>Long terme</term>
<term>Télédétection</term>
<term>Modélisation</term>
<term>Satellite</term>
<term>Monde</term>
<term>Echelon régional</term>
<term>Feu végétation</term>
<term>Océan Antarctique</term>
<term>Croissance</term>
<term>Propriété optique</term>
<term>Etats Unis</term>
<term>Mers Antarctiques</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">[1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0148-0227</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. geophys. res.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>111</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>D22</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>GINOUX (Paul)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>HOROWITZ (Larry W.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>RAMASWAMY (V.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>GEOGDZHAYEV (Igor V.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="05" i2="1"><s1>HOLBEN (Brent N.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="06" i2="1"><s1>STENCHIKOV (Georgiy)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="07" i2="1"><s1>XUEXI TIE</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory</s1>
<s2>Princeton, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies</s1>
<s2>New York, New York</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center</s1>
<s2>Greenbelt, Maryland</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey</s1>
<s2>New Brunswick, New Jersey</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="05"><s1>National Center for Atmospheric Research</s1>
<s2>Boulder, Colorado</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s2>D22210.1-D22210.21</s2>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2006</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>3144</s2>
<s5>354000145308520290</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2007 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>1 p.1/4</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>07-0068470</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Journal of geophysical research</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>[1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="2"><s0>220</s0>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="02" i2="3"><s0>001E</s0>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="03" i2="2"><s0>001E01</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Aérosol</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>aerosols</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Aerosol</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Epaisseur optique</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Optical thickness</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Espesor óptico</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="3" l="FRE"><s0>Dynamique fluide géophysique</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="3" l="ENG"><s0>Geophysical fluid dynamics</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="3" l="FRE"><s0>Modèle climat</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="3" l="ENG"><s0>Climate models</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Climat</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>climate</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Clima</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Résistance mécanique</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>strength</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Resistencia mecánica</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Concentration</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>concentration</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Concentración</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Sulfate</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>sulfates</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Sulfato</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Carbone organique</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>organic carbon</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Carbono orgánico</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Suie</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Soot</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Hollín</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Poussière</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>dust</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Polvo</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Sel marin</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Sea salt</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Sal marina</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Aluminium</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>aluminum</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Aluminio</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Humidité relative</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Relative humidity</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Humedad relativa</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Extinction</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>extinction</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Extinción</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="16" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Long terme</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="16" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Long term</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="16" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Largo plazo</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="17" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Télédétection</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="17" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>remote sensing</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="17" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Detección a distancia</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="18" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Modélisation</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="18" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Modeling</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="18" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Modelización</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="19" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Satellite</s0>
<s5>19</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="19" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>satellites</s0>
<s5>19</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="19" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Satélite</s0>
<s5>19</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="20" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Monde</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="20" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>global</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="20" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Mundo</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="21" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Echelon régional</s0>
<s5>21</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="21" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Regional scope</s0>
<s5>21</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="21" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Escala regional</s0>
<s5>21</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="22" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Feu végétation</s0>
<s5>22</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="22" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Vegetation fire</s0>
<s5>22</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="22" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Fuego vegetación</s0>
<s5>22</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="23" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Océan Antarctique</s0>
<s5>23</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="23" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>Antarctic Ocean</s0>
<s5>23</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="24" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Croissance</s0>
<s5>24</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="24" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>growth</s0>
<s5>24</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="25" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Propriété optique</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="25" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>optical properties</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="25" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Propiedad óptica</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="26" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Etats Unis</s0>
<s2>NG</s2>
<s5>61</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="26" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>United States</s0>
<s2>NG</s2>
<s5>61</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="26" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Estados Unidos</s0>
<s2>NG</s2>
<s5>61</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="27" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Mers Antarctiques</s0>
<s5>62</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="27" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>Antarctic Seas</s0>
<s5>62</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="27" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>Mares antárticos</s0>
<s5>62</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="2" l="FRE"><s0>Amérique du Nord</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="2" l="ENG"><s0>North America</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="2" l="SPA"><s0>America del norte</s0>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>043</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 07-0068470 INIST</NO>
<ET>Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate</ET>
<AU>GINOUX (Paul); HOROWITZ (Larry W.); RAMASWAMY (V.); GEOGDZHAYEV (Igor V.); HOLBEN (Brent N.); STENCHIKOV (Georgiy); XUEXI TIE</AU>
<AF>NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/Princeton, New Jersey/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 3 aut.); Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies/New York, New York/Etats-Unis (4 aut.); NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Greenbelt, Maryland/Etats-Unis (5 aut.); Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey/New Brunswick, New Jersey/Etats-Unis (6 aut.); National Center for Atmospheric Research/Boulder, Colorado/Etats-Unis (7 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Journal of geophysical research; ISSN 0148-0227; Etats-Unis; Da. 2006; Vol. 111; No. D22; D22210.1-D22210.21; Bibl. 1 p.1/4</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>[1] This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of aerosol distributions and optical depths that are used to force the GFDL coupled climate model CM2.1. The concentrations of sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, and dust are simulated using the MOZART model (Horowitz, 2006), while sea-salt concentrations are obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). These aerosol distributions and precalculated relative-humidity-dependent specific extinction are utilized in the CM2.1 radiative scheme to calculate the aerosol optical depth. Our evaluation of the mean values (1996-2000) of simulated aerosols is based on comparisons with long-term mean climatological data from ground-based and remote sensing observations as well as previous modeling studies. Overall, the predicted concentrations of aerosol are within a factor 2 of the observed values and have a tendency to be overestimated. Comparison with satellite data shows an agreement within 10% of global mean optical depth. This agreement masks regional differences of opposite signs in the optical depth. Essentially, the excessive optical depth from sulfate aerosols compensates for the underestimated contribution from organic and sea-salt aerosols. The largest discrepancies are over the northeastern United States (predicted optical depths are too high) and over biomass burning regions and southern oceans (predicted optical depths are too low). This analysis indicates that the aerosol properties are very sensitive to humidity, and major improvements could be achieved by properly taking into account their hygroscopic growth together with corresponding modifications of their optical properties.</EA>
<CC>220; 001E; 001E01</CC>
<FD>Aérosol; Epaisseur optique; Dynamique fluide géophysique; Modèle climat; Climat; Résistance mécanique; Concentration; Sulfate; Carbone organique; Suie; Poussière; Sel marin; Aluminium; Humidité relative; Extinction; Long terme; Télédétection; Modélisation; Satellite; Monde; Echelon régional; Feu végétation; Océan Antarctique; Croissance; Propriété optique; Etats Unis; Mers Antarctiques</FD>
<FG>Amérique du Nord</FG>
<ED>aerosols; Optical thickness; Geophysical fluid dynamics; Climate models; climate; strength; concentration; sulfates; organic carbon; Soot; dust; Sea salt; aluminum; Relative humidity; extinction; Long term; remote sensing; Modeling; satellites; global; Regional scope; Vegetation fire; Antarctic Ocean; growth; optical properties; United States; Antarctic Seas</ED>
<EG>North America</EG>
<SD>Aerosol; Espesor óptico; Clima; Resistencia mecánica; Concentración; Sulfato; Carbono orgánico; Hollín; Polvo; Sal marina; Aluminio; Humedad relativa; Extinción; Largo plazo; Detección a distancia; Modelización; Satélite; Mundo; Escala regional; Fuego vegetación; Propiedad óptica; Estados Unidos; Mares antárticos</SD>
<LO>INIST-3144.354000145308520290</LO>
<ID>07-0068470</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/MozartV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000142 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000142 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Musique
   |area=    MozartV1
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:07-0068470
   |texte=   Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.20.
Data generation: Sun Apr 10 15:06:14 2016. Site generation: Tue Feb 7 15:40:35 2023

	Serveur d'exploration sur Mozart
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur Mozart

Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate

Evaluation of aerosol distribution and optical depth in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled model CM2.1 for present climate

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri