4.1 Article

Long-term simulations of the sulfur concentrations over the China, Japan and Korea: A model comparison study

期刊

出版社

KOREAN METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1007/s13143-011-0025-8

关键词

Model intercomparison; Long-range Transboundary Air Pollutants in Northeast Asia (LTP); sulfur concentration simulation; Northeast Asia

资金

  1. Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development [CATER 2009-3212]
  2. Korea Meteorological Administration [CATER 2009-3212, CATER-2009-3212] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three comprehensive acid deposition models were used to simulate the sulfur concentrations over northeast Asia over the period covering entire year of 2002, and discussed the aggregated uncertainties and discrepancies of the three models. The participating models are from the countries participating in the project of Longrange Transboundary Air Pollutants in Northeast Asia (LTP): China, Japan and Korea. The Eulerian Model-3/CMAQ (by China), Regional Air Quality Model (RAQM, by Japan), and Comprehensive Acid Deposition Model (CADM, by Korea) were employed by each country with common emissions data established by the administrative agencies of China, Japan and Korea. The episodic simulation results between 1 to 15, March 2002 are also presented, during which aircraft measurements were carried out over the Yellow sea. The episodic results show both a wide short-term variability in simulations against measurements, and maximum concentration differences of 3 similar to 5 times among the three models, requiring that further attention before confidence among the three models can be claimed for short-term simulations. However, the year-long cumulative simulations showed almost the same general features, with lower aggregated uncertainties between the three models, produced by the long term integration over northeast Asia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据