the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of WRF-Chem simulated meteorology and aerosols over northern India during the severe pollution episode of 2016
Abstract. Severe seasonal air pollution events have become frequent over northern India, particularly over the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP). These episodic hazes, marked by exceedingly high levels of ambient PM2.5 (particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 microns), are hazardous for visibility and public health. It is therefore imperative to examine the capabilities of current state-of-the-art coupled meteorology-chemistry models at predicting air quality over this region. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of WRF-Chem (v4.2.1) simulated seasonal meteorology and aerosol chemistry (PM2.5 and its black carbon (BC) component) using a range of ground-based, satellite and reanalysis products, with a focus on the November 2016 haze episode. Daily and diurnal features in simulated 2 m temperature show best agreement followed by relative humidity with overall low biases. Upper air meteorology comparisons with radiosonde observations show excellent model skill in reproducing the vertical temperature gradient (r > 0.95). Both ground and radiosonde observations confirm systematic overestimations in simulated surface wind speeds (by ~ 0.5 – 0.8 m s−1), driven by high nocturnal biases. Modelled PM2.5 concentrations generally compare well with the ground-based measurements in October–November (post-monsoon) but are strongly overestimated (by a factor of 2) in September (monsoon) due to dust constituent. Delhi experiences some of the highest daily mean PM2.5 concentrations within the study region with largest biases during the extreme pollution episode. Dominant anthropogenic components in the modelled PM2.5 in Delhi during the episode include nitrate (~ 25 %), followed by secondary organic aerosols (~ 20 %), and primary organic matter, and elevated BC concentrations. Modelled spatiotemporal PM2.5 and BC compare well with MERRA-2 products. Spatially, high aerosol optical depth (AOD) over the IGP is accurately represented by the model relative to MODIS satellite (r ≥ 0.8), and ground-based AERONET observations (r ≥ 0.69), except during September. Generally, WRF-Chem correctly represents the meteorology during the afternoon and has a reasonable ability to reproduce wind patterns. This (among other factors like imperfect representation of emissions and land use information) plays a key role in dust overestimations in monsoon and anthropogenic aerosol underestimations in post-monsoon owing to enhanced dilution and mixing in the model. Overall, we find the model suitable to understand the aerosol feedbacks on meteorology during extreme pollution events with an improved diurnal characterisation of boundary layer processes and emissions estimates.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2994 KB)
-
Supplement
(2002 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2994 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2002 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1150', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Sep 2023
In this manuscript, Agarwal et al. performed a diagnostic evaluation of the state-of-the-art meteorology chemistry models in their ability to simulate meteorology and air quality over the populous, polluted Indo-Gangetic plain. The simulation is compared to ground and satellite observations as well as reanalysis products. Such an evaluation is useful in that it provides a benchmark for future studies; additionally, the study also shows that more accurate emission inventory and better characterization of boundary layer processes are key for further improvements. The manuscript is overall well-written, and I recommend the publication of the manuscript after minor revisions.
Comments:Â
Line 32: The word ‘This’ refers to insufficient aspects of the modelling, but the previous sentence is stating the model is reasonably good.
Line 35: The author should simply point out that better diurnal characterization of the boundary layer processes and emission estimates are necessary. Whether or not such improvement makes the model suitable to understand aerosol feedbacks on meteorology remains to be demonstrated, considering that ‘feedbacks’ is not really discussed in the current study.
Line 164: Can the author say a bit more than ‘satisfactorily’ so that the reader better understands the bias from the inventory?
Line 295: What is the reason for the better correlation in September? Is it due to the monsoon season?
Line 317: ERA-5 has positive bias in RH and is used to drive WRF-CHEM, how does it propagate to the negative bias in the simulations?
Figure 1: The font size of the ticklabels should be increased. Fig 1a. Are there any water grid cells?
Figure 4 is wrongly placed before Figure 3. Also, the caption of Figure 3 is incomplete.
Figures 6&7: The size of panels with similar contents should be adjusted to have the same size.
Fig S2: I find the colors for ERA and MERRA very difficult to distinguish.
Technical:
Line: 285: ‘very slightly low’ -> slightly lower
Line 572: revise the sentence ‘including because…’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1150-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1150', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1150', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Sep 2023
In this manuscript, Agarwal et al. performed a diagnostic evaluation of the state-of-the-art meteorology chemistry models in their ability to simulate meteorology and air quality over the populous, polluted Indo-Gangetic plain. The simulation is compared to ground and satellite observations as well as reanalysis products. Such an evaluation is useful in that it provides a benchmark for future studies; additionally, the study also shows that more accurate emission inventory and better characterization of boundary layer processes are key for further improvements. The manuscript is overall well-written, and I recommend the publication of the manuscript after minor revisions.
Comments:Â
Line 32: The word ‘This’ refers to insufficient aspects of the modelling, but the previous sentence is stating the model is reasonably good.
Line 35: The author should simply point out that better diurnal characterization of the boundary layer processes and emission estimates are necessary. Whether or not such improvement makes the model suitable to understand aerosol feedbacks on meteorology remains to be demonstrated, considering that ‘feedbacks’ is not really discussed in the current study.
Line 164: Can the author say a bit more than ‘satisfactorily’ so that the reader better understands the bias from the inventory?
Line 295: What is the reason for the better correlation in September? Is it due to the monsoon season?
Line 317: ERA-5 has positive bias in RH and is used to drive WRF-CHEM, how does it propagate to the negative bias in the simulations?
Figure 1: The font size of the ticklabels should be increased. Fig 1a. Are there any water grid cells?
Figure 4 is wrongly placed before Figure 3. Also, the caption of Figure 3 is incomplete.
Figures 6&7: The size of panels with similar contents should be adjusted to have the same size.
Fig S2: I find the colors for ERA and MERRA very difficult to distinguish.
Technical:
Line: 285: ‘very slightly low’ -> slightly lower
Line 572: revise the sentence ‘including because…’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1150-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1150', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1150/egusphere-2023-1150-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Prerita Agarwal, 24 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
502 | 203 | 26 | 731 | 44 | 17 | 18 |
- HTML: 502
- PDF: 203
- XML: 26
- Total: 731
- Supplement: 44
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
David S. Stevenson
Mathew R. Heal
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2994 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2002 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper