The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995
Open accessAbstract
We report on results from a World Climate Research Program workshop on representations ofscavenging and deposition processes in global transport models of the atmosphere. 15 modelswere evaluated by comparing simulations of radon, lead, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate against eachother, and against observations of these constituents. This paper provides a survey on the simulationdifferences between models. It identifies circumstances where models are consistent withobservations or with each other, and where they differ from observations or with each other. Thecomparison shows that most models are able to simulate seasonal species concentrations nearthe surface over continental sites to within a factor of 2 over many regions of the globe. Modelstend to agree more closely over source (continental) regions than for remote (polar and oceanic)regions. Model simulations differ most strongly in the upper troposphere for species undergoingwet scavenging processes. There are not a sufficient number of observations to characterize theclimatology (long-term average) of species undergoing wet scavenging in the upper troposphere.This highlights the need for either a different strategy for model evaluation (e.g., comparisons onan event by event basis) or many more observations of a few carefully chosen constituents.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., et al. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171 · Cited by 6,385
Self-citationAtmospheric global dust cycle and iron inputs to the ocean
Mahowald, N. M., Baker, A. R., Bergametti, G., Brooks, N., Duce, R. A., Jickells, T. D., Kubilay, N., Prospero, J. M., & Tegen, I. (2005) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2004gb002402 · Cited by 1,236
Self-citationAlexander, B., Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., & Gong, S. (2009) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2008jd010486 · Cited by 312
Outlook for Exploiting Artificial Intelligence in the Earth and Environmental Sciences
Boukabara, S.-A., Krasnopolsky, V., Penny, S. G., Stewart, J. Q., McGovern, A., Hall, D., Ten Hoeve, J. E., Hickey, J., Allen Huang, H.-L., Williams, J. K., et al. (2021) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-20-0031.1 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- RASCH, P. J., FEICHTER, J., LAW, K., MAHOWALD, N., PENNER, J., BENKOVITZ, C., GENTHON, C., GIANNAKOPOULOS, C., KASIBHATLA, P., KOCH, D., LEVY, H., MAKI, T., PRATHER, M., ROBERTS, D. L., ROELOFS, G.-J., STEVENSON, D., STOCKWELL, Z., TAGUCHI, S., KRITZ, M., CHIPPERFIELD, M., BALDOCCHI, D., McMURRY, P., BARRIE, L., BALKANSKI, Y., CHATFIELD, R., KJELLSTROM, E., LAWRENCE, M., LEE, H. N., LELIEVELD, J., NOONE, K. J., SEINFELD, J., STENCHIKOV, G., SCHWARTZ, S., WALCEK, C., & WILLIAMSON, D.
- Venue
- Tellus B
- Publisher
- Stockholm University Press
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1025-1056
- ISSN
- 0280-6509 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0889
- OpenAlex
- W2080329037
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2000.00980.x
- The paper
- RASCH, P. J., FEICHTER, J., LAW, K., MAHOWALD, N., PENNER, J., BENKOVITZ, C., GENTHON, C., GIANNAKOPOULOS, C., KASIBHATLA, P., KOCH, D., LEVY, H., MAKI, T., PRATHER, M., ROBERTS, D. L., ROELOFS, G.-J., STEVENSON, D., STOCKWELL, Z., TAGUCHI, S., KRITZ, M., . . . WILLIAMSON, D. (2000). A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995. Tellus B. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2000.00980.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
