<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/inc/acp/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7316</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7324</eissn>
		<volume_number>5</volume_number>
		<issue_number>1</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2005</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acp-5-107-2005</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/107/2005/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/107/2005/acp-5-107-2005.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/107/2005/acp-5-107-2005.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>107</start_page>
	<end_page>129</end_page>
	<publication_date>2005-01-21</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">An evaluation of the performance of chemistry transport models - Part 2: Detailed comparison with two selected campaigns</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>D. Brunner</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="1">
			<name>J. Staehelin</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="2">
			<name>H. L. Rogers</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="2">
			<name>M. O. KÃ¶hler</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="2">
			<name>J. A. Pyle</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="3">
			<name>D. A. Hauglustaine</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="4">
			<name>L. Jourdain</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="5">
			<name>T. K. Berntsen</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="5">
			<name>M. Gauss</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="10" affiliations="5">
			<name>I. S. A. Isaksen</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="11" affiliations="6">
			<name>E. Meijer</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="12" affiliations="6">
			<name>P. van Velthoven</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="13" affiliations="7">
			<name>G. Pitari</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="14" affiliations="7">
			<name>E. Mancini</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="15" affiliations="8">
			<name>V. Grewe</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="16" affiliations="8">
			<name>R. Sausen</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH, ZÃ¼rich, Switzerland</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de Lâ€™Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, France</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Service dâ€™Ã?eronomie, Paris, France</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="6" content_type="html">Section of Atmospheric Composition, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="7" content_type="html">Dipartimento di Fisica, UniversitÃ  Lâ€™Aquila, Lâ€™Aquila, Italy</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="8" content_type="html">Institut fÃ¼r Physik der AtmosphÃ¤re, DLR, Wessling, Germany</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">This is the second part of a rigorous model evaluation study
involving five global Chemistry-Transport and two
Chemistry-Climate Models operated by different groups in Europe.
Simulated trace gas fields were interpolated to the exact times
and positions of the observations to account for the actual
weather conditions and hence for the specific histories of the
sampled air masses. In this part of the study we focus on a
detailed comparison with two selected campaigns, PEM-Tropics A and
SONEX, contrasting the clean environment of the tropical Pacific
with the more polluted North Atlantic region. The study highlights
the different strengths and weaknesses of the models in accurately
simulating key processes in the UT/LS region including
stratosphere-troposphere-exchange, rapid convective transport,
lightning emissions, radical chemistry and ozone production. Model
simulated Radon, which was used as an idealized tracer for
continental influence, was occasionally much better correlated
with measured CO than simulated CO pointing towards deficiencies
in the used biomass burning emission fields. The abundance and
variability of HO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; radicals is in general well represented
in the models as inferred directly from the comparison with
measured OH and HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and indirectly from the comparison
with hydrogen peroxide concentrations. Components of the
NO&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; family such as PAN, HNO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; and NO were found to
compare less favorably. Interestingly, models showing good
agreement with observations in the case of PEM-Tropics A often
failed in the case of SONEX and vice versa. A better description
of NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; and NO&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, chemistry and sinks is
thought to be key to future model improvements with respect to the
representation of chemistry in the UT/LS region.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

