4.6 Article

Sulfur chemistry in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model: Description, evaluation, features, and sensitivity to aqueous chemistry

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 105, 期 D1, 页码 1387-1415

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/1999JD900773

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfur chemistry has been incorporated in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model in an internally consistent manner with other parameterizations in the model. The model predicts mixing Processes that control the mixing ratio of these species include the emissions of DMS and SO2, transport of each species, gas- and aqueous-phase chemistry, wet deposition, and dry deposition of species. Modeled concentrations agree quite well with observations for DMS and H2O2 fairly well for SO2, and not as well for SO42- The modeled SO42- tends to underestimate observed SO42- at the surface and overestimate observations in the upper troposphere. The SO2 and SO42- species were tagged according to the chemical production pathway and whether the sulfur was of anthropogenic or biogenic origin. Although aqueous-phase reactions in cloud accounted for 81% of the sulfate production rate, only similar to 50-60% of the sulfate burden in the troposphere was derived from cloud chemistry. Because cloud chemistry is an important source of sulfate in the troposphere, the importance of H2O2 concentrations and pH values was investigated. When prescribing H2O2 concentrations to clear-sky values instead of predicting H2O2, the global-averaged, annual-averaged in-cloud production of sulfate increased. Setting the pH of the drops to 4.5 also increased the in-cloud production of sulfate. In both sensitivity simulations, the increased in-cloud production of sulfate decreased the burden of sulfate because less SO2 was available for gas-phase conversion, which contributes more efficiently to the tropospheric sulfate burden than does aqueous-phase conversion.

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

4.6
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