Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published September 2000 | Published
Journal Article Open

A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995


We report on results from a World Climate Research Program workshop on representations of scavenging and deposition processes in global transport models of the atmosphere. 15 models were evaluated by comparing simulations of radon, lead, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate against each other, and against observations of these constituents. This paper provides a survey on the simulation differences between models. It identifies circumstances where models are consistent with observations or with each other, and where they differ from observations or with each other. The comparison shows that most models are able to simulate seasonal species concentrations near the surface over continental sites to within a factor of 2 over many regions of the globe. Models tend to agree more closely over source (continental) regions than for remote (polar and oceanic) regions. Model simulations differ most strongly in the upper troposphere for species undergoing wet scavenging processes. There are not a sufficient number of observations to characterize the climatology (long-term average) of species undergoing wet scavenging in the upper troposphere. This highlights the need for either a different strategy for model evaluation (e.g., comparisons on an event by event basis) or many more observations of a few carefully chosen constituents.

Additional Information

Copyright © Munksgaard, 2000. This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) License. (Manuscript received 17 November 1998; in final form 15 December 1999). We would like to thank the World Climate Research Programme and V. Savtchenko for funding the workshop. We thank Richard Larsen, G. Polian, and members of the EMEFS science teams for providing their data to us prior to its publication. We thank Daniel Jacob and Brian Eaton for comments on the first draft of the manuscript and Henning Rodhe and an anonymous referee for their comments during the review process. Work at the Met Office was supported by the UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions under contract PECD/7/12/37.

Attached Files

Published - j.1600-0889.2000.00980.x.pdf


Files (2.0 MB)
Name Size Download all
2.0 MB Preview Download

Additional details

August 19, 2023
October 18, 2023