Articles | Volume 8, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-631-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-631-2015
Development and technical paper
 | 
20 Mar 2015
Development and technical paper |  | 20 Mar 2015

Evaluation of the global aerosol microphysical ModelE2-TOMAS model against satellite and ground-based observations

Y. H. Lee, P. J. Adams, and D. T. Shindell

Related authors

Potential impact of a US climate policy and air quality regulations on future air quality and climate change
Yunha Lee, Drew T. Shindell, Greg Faluvegi, and Rob W. Pinder
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5323–5342, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5323-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5323-2016, 2016
Short summary
Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
N. I. Kristiansen, A. Stohl, D. J. L. Olivié, B. Croft, O. A. Søvde, H. Klein, T. Christoudias, D. Kunkel, S. J. Leadbetter, Y. H. Lee, K. Zhang, K. Tsigaridis, T. Bergman, N. Evangeliou, H. Wang, P.-L. Ma, R. C. Easter, P. J. Rasch, X. Liu, G. Pitari, G. Di Genova, S. Y. Zhao, Y. Balkanski, S. E. Bauer, G. S. Faluvegi, H. Kokkola, R. V. Martin, J. R. Pierce, M. Schulz, D. Shindell, H. Tost, and H. Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3525–3561, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016, 2016
Short summary
Uncertainties in global aerosols and climate effects due to biofuel emissions
J. K. Kodros, C. E. Scott, S. C. Farina, Y. H. Lee, C. L'Orange, J. Volckens, and J. R. Pierce
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 8577–8596, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8577-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8577-2015, 2015
Short summary
Multi-model mean nitrogen and sulfur deposition from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): evaluation of historical and projected future changes
J.-F. Lamarque, F. Dentener, J. McConnell, C.-U. Ro, M. Shaw, R. Vet, D. Bergmann, P. Cameron-Smith, S. Dalsoren, R. Doherty, G. Faluvegi, S. J. Ghan, B. Josse, Y. H. Lee, I. A. MacKenzie, D. Plummer, D. T. Shindell, R. B. Skeie, D. S. Stevenson, S. Strode, G. Zeng, M. Curran, D. Dahl-Jensen, S. Das, D. Fritzsche, and M. Nolan
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 7997–8018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7997-2013,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7997-2013, 2013
Representation of nucleation mode microphysics in a global aerosol model with sectional microphysics
Y. H. Lee, J. R. Pierce, and P. J. Adams
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1221–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1221-2013,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1221-2013, 2013

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
An overview of cloud–radiation denial experiments for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1
Bryce E. Harrop, Jian Lu, L. Ruby Leung, William K. M. Lau, Kyu-Myong Kim, Brian Medeiros, Brian J. Soden, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Bosong Zhang, and Balwinder Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3111–3135, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024, 2024
Short summary
The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6
Mario C. Acosta, Sergi Palomas, Stella V. Paronuzzi Ticco, Gladys Utrera, Joachim Biercamp, Pierre-Antoine Bretonniere, Reinhard Budich, Miguel Castrillo, Arnaud Caubel, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Italo Epicoco, Uwe Fladrich, Sylvie Joussaume, Alok Kumar Gupta, Bryan Lawrence, Philippe Le Sager, Grenville Lister, Marie-Pierre Moine, Jean-Christophe Rioual, Sophie Valcke, Niki Zadeh, and Venkatramani Balaji
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3081–3098, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Subgrid-scale variability of cloud ice in the ICON-AES 1.3.00
Sabine Doktorowski, Jan Kretzschmar, Johannes Quaas, Marc Salzmann, and Odran Sourdeval
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3099–3110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
INFERNO-peat v1.0.0: a representation of northern high-latitude peat fires in the JULES-INFERNO global fire model
Katie R. Blackford, Matthew Kasoar, Chantelle Burton, Eleanor Burke, Iain Colin Prentice, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3063–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, 2024
Short summary
The 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled land data assimilation system for E3SM version 2
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, Bin Wang, Kai Zhang, Samson M. Hagos, and Shixuan Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3025–3040, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Abdou, W. A., Diner, D. J., Martonchik, J. V., Bruegge, C. J., Kahn, R. A., Gaitley, B. J., Crean, K. A., Remer, L. A., and Holben, B.: Comparison of coincident Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol optical depths over land and ocean scenes containing Aerosol Robotic Network sites, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D10S07, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jd004693, 2005.
Adams, P. J. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Predicting global aerosol size distributions in general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107, 4370, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001010, 2002.
Andres, R. J. and Kasgnoc, A. D.: A time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, 103, 25251–25261, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD02091, 1998.
Arimoto, R., Ray, B. J., Duce, R. A., Hewitt, A. D., Boldi, R., and Hudson, A.: CONCENTRATIONS, SOURCES, AND FLUXES OF TRACE-ELEMENTS IN THE REMOTE MARINE ATMOSPHERE OF NEW-ZEALAND, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 95, 22389–22405, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD095iD13p22389, 1990.
Ayers, G. P., Ivey, J. P., and Gillett, R. W.: COHERENCE BETWEEN SEASONAL CYCLES OF DIMETHYL SULFIDE, METHANESULFONATE AND SULFATE IN MARINE AIR, Nature, 349, 404–406, https://doi.org/10.1038/349404a0, 1991.
Download
Short summary
We have implemented the TwO-Moment Aerosol Sectional (TOMAS) microphysics model in NASA GISS ModelE2, called “ModelE2-TOMAS”. We compared global budgets of ModelE2-TOMAS to other global aerosol models and evaluated the model with various observations such as aerosol precursor gas, aerosol mass, number concentrations, and aerosol optical depth. We found that ModelE2-TOMAS agrees with observations reasonably and that its predictions are within the range of other global aerosol model predictions.