Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.252 IF 4.252
  • IF 5-year value: 4.890 IF 5-year 4.890
  • CiteScore value: 4.49 CiteScore 4.49
  • SNIP value: 1.539 SNIP 1.539
  • SJR value: 2.404 SJR 2.404
  • IPP value: 4.28 IPP 4.28
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 51 Scimago H index 51
Volume 10, issue 11 | Copyright
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4245-4256, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Methods for assessment of models 24 Nov 2017

Methods for assessment of models | 24 Nov 2017

Source apportionment and sensitivity analysis: two methodologies with two different purposes

Alain Clappier et al.
Download
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (05 Oct 2017)  Author's response
ED: Publish as is (06 Oct 2017) by Gerd A. Folberth
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
This work demonstrates that when the relationship between emissions and concentrations is nonlinear, sensitivity approaches, generally used for air quality planning, are not suitable to retrieve source contributions and source apportionment methods are not appropriate to evaluate the impact of abatement strategies on air quality. A simple theoretical example is used highlighting differences and potential implications for policy.
This work demonstrates that when the relationship between emissions and concentrations is...
Citation
Share