the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of CMIP6 model simulations of PM2.5 and its components over China
Abstract. Earth system models (ESMs) participating in the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) simulate various components of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as major climate forcers. Yet the model performance for PM2.5 components remains little evaluated due in part to lack of observational data. Here, we evaluate near-surface concentrations of PM2.5 and its five main components over China as simulated by fourteen CMIP6 models, including organic carbon (OC, available in 14 models), black carbon (BC, 14 models), sulfate (14 models), nitrate (4 models), and ammonium (5 models). For this purpose, we collect observational data between 2000 and 2014 from a satellite-based dataset for total PM2.5 and from 2469 measurement records in the literature for PM2.5 components. Seven models output total PM2.5 concentrations, and they all underestimate the observed total PM2.5 over eastern China, with GFDL-ESM4 (–1.5 %) and MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM (–1.1 %) exhibiting the smallest biases averaged over the whole country. The other seven models, for which we recalculate total PM2.5 from the available components output, underestimate the total PM2.5 concentrations, partly because of the missing model representations of nitrate and ammonium. Concentrations of the five individual components are underestimated in almost all models, except that sulfate is overestimated in MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM by 12.6 % and in MRI-ESM2-0 by 24.5 %. The underestimation is the largest for OC (by –71.2 % to –37.8 % across the 14 models) and the smallest for BC (–47.9 % to –12.1 %). The multi-model mean (MMM) reproduces fairly well the observed spatial pattern for OC (R = 0.51), sulfate (R = 0.57), nitrate (R = 0.70) and ammonium (R = 0.75), yet the agreement is poorer for BC (R = 0.39). The varying performances of ESMs on total PM2.5 and its components have important implications for the modeled magnitude and spatial pattern of aerosol radiative forcing.
-
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
(2333 KB)
-
Supplement
(2797 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2333 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2797 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2370', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Dec 2023
Please find my comments in the attachment.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
We thank a lot the Reviewer #1 for the comments. We have studied the comments carefully and tried to incorporate as many suggested changes as possiblee, which have greatly helped us in
improving the manuscript. Our detailed responses to the comments and suggestions are in the supplement. The original comments are in green while our replies are in black.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2370', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jan 2024
This manuscript presented a thorough and fundamental evaluation of the CMIP6 model simulations of PM2.5 over China. CMIP6 simulations are widely applied for climate related studies and it is necessary to fully understand model uncertainty as aerosol plays an important role in the climate system. Yet the performance of global model for predicting surface PM2.5 concentrations has been largely ignored as it was considered as a special task for chemical transport models, especially at regional scale. However, in recent decade many studies reported the significance of interactions between air pollution and climate, thus it is important to reveal how the CMIP6 simulations can reproduce surface PM2.5 as well. The manuscript is well organized with clear description of model and observational data employed. It provide a thorough discussion of the results and origins of uncertainties with solid method. Therefore, I would recommend it to be accepted with minor revisions if the following comments could be properly addressed.
line158: It would be helpful to show the comparison between direct summary of all fine aerosol species (e.g., PM2.5 = sulfate + oa + nitrate + ammonium + bc + fine dust + fine sslt + bc) and the value of this equation, for the 4 models which provide nitrate. This would help to demonstrate the accuracy of the equation.
line171: It would be helpful to show comparison between satellite product and model results for AOD at monthly scale to reveal the performance of model in simulating seasonal variations of aerosol over China. This may provide more indications of model uncertainty, such as dust may dominate in spring and OA may dominate in summer.
line194: Not sure what is “effect of interannual variability”, please make it clear.
line201: A figure similar to Fig.4 but for bias between model and satellite-based product would be helpful to reveal the difference more clear.
line209: It would be helpful to provide a brief discussion of why certain specific model show better performance than others.
line238: Can you add a brief discussion of possible causes for the decline over 200-2005 in satellite data? Is it an observational fact or satellite bias, if it is a fact, then why model can not reproduce it?
line250: Not sure what is “spatially coincidently sampled”, please make it clear.
line255: It would be helpful to add a brief discussion to explain why model difference peaks at these regions.
line259: Is it because of spatial distribution pattern of CEDS emission?
line269: How much was CEDS emission data, as compared to which dataset?
line272: BC is primary
line272: Do all models have warm bias over Xinjiang? In addition, some observation sites provide PBL measurements as well, so why not perform evaluation of simulated PBL directly?
line292: It would be helpful to briefly explain how 14 models simulate sulfate formation chemistry.
line344: Not sure what is “seasonal model results to match seasonal observational”, do you mean conduct model evaluation at seasonal scale, so all models and observations are averaged seasonally?
line406: I would recommend to mention it as those causes for aerosol underestimation may also affect O3.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2370-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
We thank a lot the Reviewer #2 for the comments. We have studied the comments carefully and tried to incorporate as many suggested changes as possiblee, which have greatly helped us in improving the manuscript. Our detailed responses to the comments and suggestions are in the supplement. The original comments are in green while our replies are in black.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2370', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Dec 2023
Please find my comments in the attachment.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
We thank a lot the Reviewer #1 for the comments. We have studied the comments carefully and tried to incorporate as many suggested changes as possiblee, which have greatly helped us in
improving the manuscript. Our detailed responses to the comments and suggestions are in the supplement. The original comments are in green while our replies are in black.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2370', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jan 2024
This manuscript presented a thorough and fundamental evaluation of the CMIP6 model simulations of PM2.5 over China. CMIP6 simulations are widely applied for climate related studies and it is necessary to fully understand model uncertainty as aerosol plays an important role in the climate system. Yet the performance of global model for predicting surface PM2.5 concentrations has been largely ignored as it was considered as a special task for chemical transport models, especially at regional scale. However, in recent decade many studies reported the significance of interactions between air pollution and climate, thus it is important to reveal how the CMIP6 simulations can reproduce surface PM2.5 as well. The manuscript is well organized with clear description of model and observational data employed. It provide a thorough discussion of the results and origins of uncertainties with solid method. Therefore, I would recommend it to be accepted with minor revisions if the following comments could be properly addressed.
line158: It would be helpful to show the comparison between direct summary of all fine aerosol species (e.g., PM2.5 = sulfate + oa + nitrate + ammonium + bc + fine dust + fine sslt + bc) and the value of this equation, for the 4 models which provide nitrate. This would help to demonstrate the accuracy of the equation.
line171: It would be helpful to show comparison between satellite product and model results for AOD at monthly scale to reveal the performance of model in simulating seasonal variations of aerosol over China. This may provide more indications of model uncertainty, such as dust may dominate in spring and OA may dominate in summer.
line194: Not sure what is “effect of interannual variability”, please make it clear.
line201: A figure similar to Fig.4 but for bias between model and satellite-based product would be helpful to reveal the difference more clear.
line209: It would be helpful to provide a brief discussion of why certain specific model show better performance than others.
line238: Can you add a brief discussion of possible causes for the decline over 200-2005 in satellite data? Is it an observational fact or satellite bias, if it is a fact, then why model can not reproduce it?
line250: Not sure what is “spatially coincidently sampled”, please make it clear.
line255: It would be helpful to add a brief discussion to explain why model difference peaks at these regions.
line259: Is it because of spatial distribution pattern of CEDS emission?
line269: How much was CEDS emission data, as compared to which dataset?
line272: BC is primary
line272: Do all models have warm bias over Xinjiang? In addition, some observation sites provide PBL measurements as well, so why not perform evaluation of simulated PBL directly?
line292: It would be helpful to briefly explain how 14 models simulate sulfate formation chemistry.
line344: Not sure what is “seasonal model results to match seasonal observational”, do you mean conduct model evaluation at seasonal scale, so all models and observations are averaged seasonally?
line406: I would recommend to mention it as those causes for aerosol underestimation may also affect O3.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2370-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
We thank a lot the Reviewer #2 for the comments. We have studied the comments carefully and tried to incorporate as many suggested changes as possiblee, which have greatly helped us in improving the manuscript. Our detailed responses to the comments and suggestions are in the supplement. The original comments are in green while our replies are in black.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fangxuan Ren, 08 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
375 | 107 | 24 | 506 | 23 | 15 | 20 |
- HTML: 375
- PDF: 107
- XML: 24
- Total: 506
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Fangxuan Ren
Chenghao Xu
Jamiu A. Adeniran
Jingxu Wang
Randall V. Martin
Aaron van Donkelaar
Melanie Hammer
Larry Horowitz
Steven T. Turnock
Naga Oshima
Jie Zhang
Susanne Bauer
Kostas Tsigaridis
Øyvind Seland
Pierre Nabat
David Neubauer
Gary Strand
Twan van Noije
Philippe Le Sager
Toshihiko Takemura
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2333 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2797 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper