Assessing Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE aerosol climatology using satellite and ground‐based measurements: A comparison study
Assessing Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE aerosol climatology using satellite and ground‐based measurements: A comparison study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2006jd007334
复制
发表时间：
2006-10
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Li Liu;A. Lacis;B. Carlson;M. Mishchenko;B. Cairns
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li Liu;A. Lacis;B. Carlson;M. Mishchenko;B. Cairns
[1] 基于物理的气溶胶气候学对于解决全球气候变化问题非常重要。我们通过安斯特罗姆指数 (A) 与可用的卫星和地面测量数据（即 MODIS、MISR、POLDER、AVHRR 和 AERONET 数据）来表征和比较气溶胶光学深度 (AOD) 和颗粒大小的地理分布和季节变化，从而评估 GISS ModelE（Schmidt 等，2006）中使用的气溶胶气候学。有许多模型参数，特别是与气溶胶尺寸规格相关的参数，可以通过与卫星数据进行比较来更好地限制。我们的比较表明，AOD的卫星和地面全球分布存在较大差异。对于埃指数，观测值之间的差异会增加。考虑到与卫星反演结果相关的不确定性，GCM 气溶胶和卫星数据之间的全球光学深度分布的一致性在质量上是合理的。然而，与卫星数据相比，GCM 气溶胶的埃指数明显偏低，这意味着 GCM 气溶胶的大小被高估了。 ModelE 气溶胶单散射反照率 ϖ 与 TOMS 气溶胶指数 (AI) 和 AERONET 数据存在定性一致性。比较显示大多数位置的气溶胶吸收不足，表明可能低估了 GCM 中的黑碳分布。然而，更定量的比较首先需要重新调整 GCM 气溶胶尺寸规格。
[1] A physically based aerosol climatology is important to address questions of global climate change. We evaluate the aerosol climatology used in the GISS ModelE (Schmidt et al., 2006), by characterizing and comparing the geographic distribution and seasonal variability of aerosol optical depth (AOD) and particle size via Angstrom exponent (A) against available satellite and ground-based measurements, i.e., MODIS, MISR, POLDER, AVHRR, and AERONET data. There are a number of model parameters, particularly those related to aerosol size specification, that can be better constrained by comparison to satellite data. Our comparison shows that there are large differences in the satellite and ground-based global distributions of AOD. The differences between the observations increase for the Angstrom exponent. Given the uncertainties associated with satellite retrieval results, the agreement in the distributions of global optical depth between GCM aerosols and satellite data is qualitatively reasonable. However, the Angstrom exponent of the GCM aerosol is clearly biased low compared to satellite data, implying that the GCM aerosol sizes are overestimated. There is qualitative agreement of the ModelE aerosol single scattering albedo ϖ with TOMS Aerosol Index (AI) and AERONET data. The comparisons show insufficient aerosol absorption at most locations, suggesting a possible underestimation of black carbon distributions in the GCM. However, a more quantitative comparison first requires a readjustment of the GCM aerosol size specification.