Predicting global aerosol size distributions in general circulation models

By P. Adams, John H. Seinfeld. 2002

338 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2c4c42f61b0c2fa655278eb616154b4549f22fd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. Xiaohong Liu
2. Steven Ghan
3. Markku Kulmala
4. J. Penner
5. Minghuai Wang
6. R. Easter
7. K. Lehtinen
8. M. Andreae

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Xiaohong Liu
2. Steven Ghan
3. Markku Kulmala
4. J. Penner
5. R. Easter
6. Minghuai Wang
7. M. Andreae
8. P. Stier

Citations in the corpus

• Multicomponent aerosol dynamics model UHMA: model development and validation (2004, methodology): “In this context, the most customary approaches to describe the particle size distribution have been modal (Ackerman et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 2001; Ghan et al.,20 2001b) or sectional (Adams and Seinfeld, 2002; Griffin et al., 2002; Gong et al., 2003).”
• Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? (2009, methodology): “…simulations are performed in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II-prime (GISS GCM II-prime) [Hansen et al., 1983; Rind and Lerner, 1996] with online aerosol microphysics using the TwOMoment Aerosol Sectional (TOMAS) microphysics algorithm [Adams and Seinfeld, 2002].”
• Emulation of a complex global aerosol model to quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters (2011, neutral): “The large grid scale of the model means particle formation in power plant 5 plumes cannot be resolved, so a fraction of the anthropogenic SO2 in global models is often emitted directly as particles (Adams and Seinfeld, 2003). The uncertainty in the particulate emissions of anthropogenic SO2 is set i”
• Direct observational evidence linking atmospheric aerosol formation and cloud droplet activation (2005, background): “A major reason for these uncertainties is the lack of understanding on the extent to which different aerosol sources contribute to modifying climatically important cloud properties [Adams and Seinfeld, 2002; Spracklen et al., 2005; Stier et al., 2005].”
• The aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM (2004, methodology): “Adams and Seinfeld(2002) predicted the sizedistribution of sulfate aerosol with an interactive approach. A number of studies, (e.g. Tegen et al. , 1997; Jacobson , 2001; Takemura et al. , 2000), incorporated partly size-segregated aerosol modules with several components into global aerosol models, n”
• Aerosol indirect forcing in a global model with particle nucleation (2008, background): “, 2001; Adams and Seinfeld, 2002; Gong et al., 2003; Easter et al., 2004; Lauer et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2005; Spracklen et al., 2005a; Stier et al., 2005). Generally, these aerosol microphysics modules include the formation of new aerosol particles (nucleation) from gas phase species (e.g., sulfur”
• Toward a Minimal Representation of Aerosols in Climate Models: Comparative Decomposition of Aerosol Direct, Semidirect, and Indirect Radiative Forcing (2012, background): “A sectional representation (Adams and Seinfeld 2002; Spracklen et al. 2005) is most accurate given a sufficient number of bins (Zhang et al.”
• Aerosol Properties and Processes: A Path from Field and Laboratory Measurements to Global Climate Models (2007, methodology): “The sectional method (Adams and Seinfeld 2002) is most general because the size distribution is explicitly represented, but it requires extensive computational resources in storing, evolving, and transporting large numbers of variables.”
• Aerosol Mixing State: Measurements, Modeling, and Impacts (2019, background): “Bulk models can be considered as the “first generation” of aerosol models used in global climate models (Adams & Seinfeld, 2002) or for applications on regional scales where computational resources are limited (e.g., the CAMx “coarse-fine” representation, which assumes a single diameter for the…”
• Global indirect aerosol effects: a review (2004, neutral): “Bin schemes have been applied for sulfate (Adams and Seinfeld, 2002), for mineral dust studies (Tegen and Fung, 1994), for sea salt aerosols (Gong et al., 1997) and for sulfate and seasalt (Gong and Barrie, 2003; Spracklen et al., 2005).”
• Aerosol cloud precipitation interactions. Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols (2008, background): “…some fairly comprehensive global aerosol models become available that include explicit representation of the number size distributions of aerosols (Adams and Seinfeld, 2002; Gong et al., 2003; Herzog et al., 2004; Rodriguez and Dabdub, 2004; Spracklen et al., 2005a,b, 2007; Lauer et al., 2005;…”
• Limitations in the enhancement of visible light absorption due to mixing state (2006, methodology): “This is not a trivial task, requiring some method of explicitly representing aerosol size [e.g., Jacobson, 2001a; Adams and Seinfeld, 2002; Liu et al., 2005].”