Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 835

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model

Open access
Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A., Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., Tyndall, G. K.·2012·Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract

Abstract. We discuss and evaluate the representation of atmospheric chemistry in the global Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) version 4, the atmospheric component of the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We present a variety of configurations for the representation of tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry, wet removal, and online and offline meteorology. Results from simulations illustrating these configurations are compared with surface, aircraft and satellite observations. Major biases include a negative bias in the high-latitude CO distribution, a positive bias in upper-tropospheric/lower-stratospheric ozone, and a positive bias in summertime surface ozone (over the United States and Europe). The tropospheric net chemical ozone production varies significantly between configurations, partly related to variations in stratosphere-troposphere exchange. Aerosol optical depth tends to be underestimated over most regions, while comparison with aerosol surface measurements over the United States indicate reasonable results for sulfate , especially in the online simulation. Other aerosol species exhibit significant biases. Overall, the model-data comparison indicates that the offline simulation driven by GEOS5 meteorological analyses provides the best simulation, possibly due in part to the increased vertical resolution (52 levels instead of 26 for online dynamics). The CAM-chem code as described in this paper, along with all the necessary datasets needed to perform the simulations described here, are available for download at www.cesm.ucar.edu.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 96 references

Cited by

See all 835

Metadata

Authors
Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A., Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., & Tyndall, G. K.
Venue
Geoscientific Model Development
Published
2012-03-27
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
369-411
ISSN
  • 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
  • 1991-9603
OpenAlex
W2012196264
Cited by
835
References
96
FWCI
35.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012
The paper
Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A., Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., & Tyndall, G. K. (2012). CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model. Geoscientific Model Development. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012

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.