Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.154 IF 5.154
  • IF 5-year value: 5.697 IF 5-year
    5.697
  • CiteScore value: 5.56 CiteScore
    5.56
  • SNIP value: 1.761 SNIP 1.761
  • IPP value: 5.30 IPP 5.30
  • SJR value: 3.164 SJR 3.164
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 59 Scimago H
    index 59
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
GMD | Articles | Volume 11, issue 11
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4489–4513, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4489-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4489–4513, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4489-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Development and technical paper 09 Nov 2018

Development and technical paper | 09 Nov 2018

On the impact of recent developments of the LMDz atmospheric general circulation model on the simulation of CO2 transport

Marine Remaud et al.
Related authors  
Objective evaluation of surface- and satellite-driven CO2 atmospheric inversions
Frédéric Chevallier, Marine Remaud, Christopher W. O'Dell, David Baker, Philippe Peylin, and Anne Cozic
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-213,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-213, 2019
Revised manuscript accepted for ACP
Short summary
Related subject area  
Atmospheric Sciences
Description and evaluation of the tropospheric aerosol scheme in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS-AER, cycle 45R1)
Samuel Rémy, Zak Kipling, Johannes Flemming, Olivier Boucher, Pierre Nabat, Martine Michou, Alessio Bozzo, Melanie Ades, Vincent Huijnen, Angela Benedetti, Richard Engelen, Vincent-Henri Peuch, and Jean-Jacques Morcrette
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4627–4659, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4627-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4627-2019, 2019
Short summary
Multimodel simulations of a springtime dust storm over northeastern China: implications of an evaluation of four commonly used air quality models (CMAQ v5.2.1, CAMx v6.50, CHIMERE v2017r4, and WRF-Chem v3.9.1)
Siqi Ma, Xuelei Zhang, Chao Gao, Daniel Q. Tong, Aijun Xiu, Guangjian Wu, Xinyuan Cao, Ling Huang, Hongmei Zhao, Shichun Zhang, Sergio Ibarra-Espinosa, Xin Wang, Xiaolan Li, and Mo Dan
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4603–4625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4603-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4603-2019, 2019
Short summary
tobac 1.2: towards a flexible framework for tracking and analysis of clouds in diverse datasets
Max Heikenfeld, Peter J. Marinescu, Matthew Christensen, Duncan Watson-Parris, Fabian Senf, Susan C. van den Heever, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4551–4570, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4551-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4551-2019, 2019
Short summary
Simulating lightning NO production in CMAQv5.2: performance evaluations
Daiwen Kang, Kristen M. Foley, Rohit Mathur, Shawn J. Roselle, Kenneth E. Pickering, and Dale J. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4409–4424, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4409-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4409-2019, 2019
Short summary
A Lagrangian convective transport scheme including a simulation of the time air parcels spend in updrafts (LaConTra v1.0)
Ingo Wohltmann, Ralph Lehmann, Georg A. Gottwald, Karsten Peters, Alain Protat, Valentin Louf, Christopher Williams, Wuhu Feng, and Markus Rex
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4387–4407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4387-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4387-2019, 2019
Short summary
Cited articles  
Basu, S., Baker, D. F., Chevallier, F., Patra, P. K., Liu, J., and Miller, J. B.: The impact of transport model differences on CO2 surface flux estimates from OCO-2 retrievals of column average CO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7189–7215, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7189-2018, 2018. a, b
Belikov, D. A., Maksyutov, S., Krol, M., Fraser, A., Rigby, M., Bian, H., Agusti-Panareda, A., Bergmann, D., Bousquet, P., Cameron-Smith, P., Chipperfield, M. P., Fortems-Cheiney, A., Gloor, E., Haynes, K., Hess, P., Houweling, S., Kawa, S. R., Law, R. M., Loh, Z., Meng, L., Palmer, P. I., Patra, P. K., Prinn, R. G., Saito, R., and Wilson, C.: Off-line algorithm for calculation of vertical tracer transport in the troposphere due to deep convection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1093–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1093-2013, 2013. a
Byrne, B., Jones, D. B. A., Strong, K., Zeng, Z., Deng, F., and Liu, J.: Sensitivity of CO2 surface flux constraints to observational coverage, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6672–6694, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026164, 2017. a
Chevallier, F.: Validation report for the inverted CO2 fluxes, v15r4, Report, Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, 2017. a, b, c
Chevallier, F., Engelen, R. J., and Peylin, P.: The contribution of AIRS data to the estimation of CO2 sources and sinks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024229, 2005. a
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
We compare several versions of a global atmospheric transport model for the simulation of CO2. The representation of subgrid-scale processes modulates the interhemispheric gradient and the amplitude of the seasonal cycle in the Northern Hemisphere. It has the largest impact over Brazil. Refining the horizontal resolution improves the simulation near emission hotspots or along the coastlines. The sensitivities to the land surface model and to the increase in vertical resolution are marginal.
We compare several versions of a global atmospheric transport model for the simulation of CO2....
Citation