EGU24-6741, updated on 08 Mar 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6741
EGU General Assembly 2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

An ensemble investigation of the causes for regional air-quality model critical load exceedances prediction variability in European and North American domains using diagnostics from Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative

Paul Makar1, Philip Cheung1, Christian Hogrefe2, Akingunola Ayodeji1, Ummugulsum Alyuz-Ozdemir3, Jesse Bash2, Michael Bell4, Roberto Bellasio5, Roberto Bianconi5, Tim Butler6, Hazel Cathcart1, Olivia Clifton7,8, Amanda Cole1, Alma Hodzic9, Iannis Kioutsioukis10, Kranenburg Richard11, Aurelia Lupascu6,12, Jason A. Lynch13, John-Kester Momoh3, JuanLuis Perez-Camanyo14, and the Remaining AQMEII4 Critical Load and Modelling Team Members*
Paul Makar et al.
  • 1Air quality research division, environment and climate change canada, toronto, canada (paul.makar@ec.gc.ca)
  • 2Ord, us epa, research triangle park,nc,usa
  • 3Centre for climate change research (c3r), u. hertfordshire, uk
  • 4Air resources division, us national park service, usa
  • 5Enviroware srl, concorezzo, mb, italy
  • 6Research institute for sustainability – helmholtz centre potsdam , germany
  • 7Nasa goddard institute for space studies, new york, ny, usa
  • 8Center for climate systems research, columbia university, new york, ny
  • 9Ncar, boulder, co, usa
  • 10University of patras, laboratory of atmospheric physics, 26500, rio, greece
  • 11Noasr, utrecht, the netherlands
  • 12Ecmwf, bonn, germany
  • 13Oar, us epa, usa
  • 14Tech. u. of madrid (upm), madrid, spain
  • *A full list of authors appears at the end of the abstract

We summarize tentative findings from multi air quality model ensembles for the years 2009 and 2010 in Europe (EU), and 2010 and 2016 in North America (NA), under AQMEII-4.  The model predictions of sulphur and nitrogen deposition were used to estimate exceedances of critical loads for acidification and eutrophication, to show the extent to which the ensemble members agree in the magnitude and the trend of ecologically meaningful impacts.  Model exceedance variability was analyzed using AQMEII-4 diagnostics.  Evaluation against concentration and wet deposition observations, coupled with these diagnostics, identified specific process representations as the causes for variability between model predictions and for reduced model performance. 

All models predicted reductions in ecosystem acidification impacts in North America between the years 2010 and 2016, in accord with SO2 emissions reduction legislation which started in 2010 (SO2 SIP) However, all models in EU and NA domains had net negative biases for wet deposition of sulphur and nitrogen relative to observations.  The wet S deposition average mean bias for the NA ensemble was -0.17 eq ha-1 d-1, and for the EU ensemble -1.15 eq ha-1 d-1.  The NA daily wet deposition average mean bias for NH4+ was -0.37 eq ha-1d-1; EU -1.19 eq ha-1 d-1.  The daily NA wet NO3- deposition average mean bias was -0.24 eq ha-1d-1; EU -0.69 eq ha-1 d-1.  The members of the ensemble diverged (factor of 10) in their North American predictions for Ndep and consequently their eutrophication exceedances. The models with the highest eutrophication predictions also predicted the highest levels of gas-phase ammonia dry deposition (standard deviation of ammonia dry deposition flux across ensemble members was larger than the ensemble average).  These models also had negative biases of predicted ammonia concentrations; average mean biases of -0.63 (satellite NH3) and -0.85 ppbv (surface NH3) compared to ensemble averages of -0.30 and -0.34 ppbv.  Diagnostics showed that these differences resulted from the manner in which bidirectional ammonia fluxes were parameterized within these models.  The second largest source of NA eutrophication prediction variability were models with positive biases in particulate ammonium and nitrate concentrations, and higher particle nitrogen deposition levels ( particle ammonium concentration bias +0.35 ug m-3; ensemble bias +0.15 ug m-3).   We believe two factors may have led to these latter overestimates:  higher levels of fine mode particle nitrate formation compared to other models (due to the use of an inorganic heterogeneous chemistry algorithm which did not take base cation chemistry into account), and updates to particle dry deposition velocities carried out in the absence of concurrent updates to wet scavenging algorithms. 

The relative importance of dry gas, dry particulate, and wet deposition towards total sulphur and nitrogen deposition totals differed between EU and North American domains, though all models had negative biases in wet deposition as noted above.  Parallel and subsequent work suggests that multiphase hydrometeor scavenging may improve model wet deposition performance. 

An increased research focus is recommended for four model processes: multiphase hydrometeor scavenging, ammonia bidirectional fluxes, base cation chemistry and emissions, and particle dry deposition. 

Remaining AQMEII4 Critical Load and Modelling Team Members:

J. Pleim(2), Y.-H. Ryu(15), R. San Jose(14), Donna Schwede(2,16), T. Scheuschner(17), M. W. Shephard(1), R. Sokhi(3), S. Galmarini(18).

How to cite: Makar, P., Cheung, P., Hogrefe, C., Ayodeji, A., Alyuz-Ozdemir, U., Bash, J., Bell, M., Bellasio, R., Bianconi, R., Butler, T., Cathcart, H., Clifton, O., Cole, A., Hodzic, A., Kioutsioukis, I., Richard, K., Lupascu, A., Lynch, J. A., Momoh, J.-K., and Perez-Camanyo, J. and the Remaining AQMEII4 Critical Load and Modelling Team Members: An ensemble investigation of the causes for regional air-quality model critical load exceedances prediction variability in European and North American domains using diagnostics from Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-6741, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6741, 2024.