Search

A primary sink of air pollutants and their precursors is dry deposition. Dry deposition estimates differ across chemical transport models, yet an understanding of the model spread is incomplete. Here, we introduce Activity 2 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative Phase 4 (AQMEII4). We examine 18 dry deposition schemes from regional and global chemical transport models as well as standalone models used for impact assessments or process understanding. We configure the schemes as single-point models at eight Northern Hemisphere locations with observed ozone fluxes. Single-point models are driven by a common set of site-specific meteorological and environmental conditions. Five of eight sites have at least 3 years and up to 12 years of ozone fluxes. The interquartile range across models in multiyear mean ozone deposition velocities ranges from a factor of 1.2 to 1.9 annually across sites and tends to be highest during winter compared with summer. No model is within 50 % of observed multiyear averages across all sites and seasons, but some models perform well for some sites and seasons. For the first time, we demonstrate how contributions from depositional pathways vary across models. Models can disagree with respect to relative contributions from the pathways, even when they predict similar deposition velocities, or agree with respect to the relative contributions but predict different deposition velocities. Both stomatal and nonstomatal uptake contribute to the large model spread across sites. Our findings are the beginning of results from AQMEII4 Activity 2, which brings scientists who model air quality and dry deposition together with scientists who measure ozone fluxes to evaluate and improve dry deposition schemes in the chemical transport models used for research, planning, and regulatory purposes.

We present in this technical note the research protocol for phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). This research initiative is divided into two activities, collectively having three goals: (i) to define the current state of the science with respect to representations of wet and especially dry deposition in regional models, (ii) to quantify the extent to which different dry deposition parameterizations influence retrospective air pollutant concentration and flux predictions, and (iii) to identify, through the use of a common set of detailed diagnostics, sensitivity simulations, model evaluation, and reduction of input uncertainty, the specific causes for the current range of these predictions. Activity 1 is dedicated to the diagnostic evaluation of wet and dry deposition processes in regional air quality models (described in this paper), and Activity 2 to the evaluation of dry deposition point models against ozone flux measurements at multiple towers with multiyear observations (to be described in future submissions as part of the special issue on AQMEII4). The scope of this paper is to present the scientific protocols for Activity 1, as well as to summarize the technical information associated with the different dry deposition approaches used by the participating research groups of AQMEII4. In addition to describing all common aspects and data used for this multi-model evaluation activity, most importantly, we present the strategy devised to allow a common process-level comparison of dry deposition obtained from models using sometimes very different dry deposition schemes. The strategy is based on adding detailed diagnostics to the algorithms used in the dry deposition modules of existing regional air quality models, in particular archiving diagnostics specific to land use–land cover (LULC) and creating standardized LULC categories to facilitate cross-comparison of LULC-specific dry deposition parameters and processes, as well as archiving effective conductance and effective flux as means for comparing the relative influence of different pathways towards the net or total dry deposition. This new approach, along with an analysis of precipitation and wet deposition fields, will provide an unprecedented process-oriented comparison of deposition in regional air quality models. Examples of how specific dry deposition schemes used in participating models have been reduced to the common set of comparable diagnostics defined for AQMEII4 are also presented.

Simulations from chemical weather models are subject to uncertainties in the input data (e.g. emission inventory, initial and boundary conditions) as well as those intrinsic to the model (e.g. physical parameterization, chemical mechanism). Multi-model ensembles can improve the forecast skill, provided that certain mathematical conditions are fulfilled. In this work, four ensemble methods were applied to two different datasets, and their performance was compared for ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Apart from the unconditional ensemble average, the approach behind the other three methods relies on adding optimum weights to members or constraining the ensemble to those members that meet certain conditions in time or frequency domain. The two different datasets were created for the first and second phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII). The methods are evaluated against ground level observations collected from the EMEP (European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme) and AirBase databases. The goal of the study is to quantify to what extent we can extract predictable signals from an ensemble with superior skill over the single models and the ensemble mean. Verification statistics show that the deterministic models simulate better O3 than NO2 and PM10, linked to different levels of complexity in the represented processes. The unconditional ensemble mean achieves higher skill compared to each station's best deterministic model at no more than 60 % of the sites, indicating a combination of members with unbalanced skill difference and error dependence for the rest. The promotion of the right amount of accuracy and diversity within the ensemble results in an average additional skill of up to 31 % compared to using the full ensemble in an unconditional way. The skill improvements were higher for O3 and lower for PM10, associated with the extent of potential changes in the joint distribution of accuracy and diversity in the ensembles. The skill enhancement was superior using the weighting scheme, but the training period required to acquire representative weights was longer compared to the sub-selecting schemes. Further development of the method is discussed in the conclusion.

Data assimilation is used in atmospheric chemistry models to improve air quality forecasts, construct re-analyses of three-dimensional chemical (including aerosol) concentrations and perform inverse modeling of input variables or model parameters (e.g., emissions). Coupled chemistry meteorology models (CCMM) are atmospheric chemistry models that simulate meteorological processes and chemical transformations jointly. They offer the possibility to assimilate both meteorological and chemical data; however, because CCMM are fairly recent, data assimilation in CCMM has been limited to date. We review here the current status of data assimilation in atmospheric chemistry models with a particular focus on future prospects for data assimilation in CCMM. We first review the methods available for data assimilation in atmospheric models, including variational methods, ensemble Kalman filters, and hybrid methods. Next, we review past applications that have included chemical data assimilation in chemical transport models (CTM) and in CCMM. Observational data sets available for chemical data assimilation are described, including surface data, surface-based remote sensing, airborne data, and satellite data. Several case studies of chemical data assimilation in CCMM are presented to highlight the benefits obtained by assimilating chemical data in CCMM. A case study of data assimilation to constrain emissions is also presented. There are few examples to date of joint meteorological and chemical data assimilation in CCMM and potential difficulties associated with data assimilation in CCMM are discussed. As the number of variables being assimilated increases, it is essential to characterize correctly the errors; in particular, the specification of error cross-correlations may be problematic. In some cases, offline diagnostics are necessary to ensure that data assimilation can truly improve model performance. However, the main challenge is likely to be the paucity of chemical data available for assimilation in CCMM.