the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Critical Load Exceedances for North America and Europe using an Ensemble of Models and an Investigation of Causes for Environmental Impact Estimate Variability: An AQMEII4 Study
Abstract. Exceedances of critical loads for deposition of sulphur (S) and nitrogen (N) to different ecosystems were estimated using European and North American ensembles of air quality models, under Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), to identify where risk of ecosystem harm is expected to occur based on model deposition estimates. The ensembles were driven by common emissions and lateral boundary condition inputs. Model output was regridded to common North American and Europe 0.125° resolution domains, which were then used to calculate critical load exceedances. New, targeted deposition diagnostics implemented in AQMEII4 allowed an unprecedented level of post-simulation analysis to be carried out and facilitated the identification of specific causes of model-to-model variability in critical load exceedance estimates.
New datasets for North American critical loads for acidity for forest soil water and aquatic ecosystems were combined with the ensemble deposition predictions to show a substantial decrease in the area and number of locations in exceedance between 2010 and 2016 (forest soils: 13.2 % to 6.1 %; aquatic ecosystems: 21.2 % to 11.4 %). All models agreed in the direction of the ensemble exceedance change between 2010 and 2016. The North American ensemble also predicted a decrease in both severity and total area in exceedance between the years 2010 and 2016 for eutrophication-impacted ecosystems in the USA (sensitive epiphytic lichen: 81.5 % to 75.8 %). The exceedances for herbaceous community richness also decreased between 2010 and 2016, from 13.9 % to 3.9 %. The uncertainty associated with the North American eutrophication results is high; there were sharp differences between the models in both predictions of total N deposition and the change in N deposition, and hence in the predicted eutrophication exceedances between the two years. The European ensemble was used to predict relatively static exceedances of critical loads with respect to acidification (4.48 % to 4.32 % from 2009 to 2010) while eutrophication exceedance increased slightly (60.2 % to 62.2 %).
While most models showed the same changes in critical load exceedances as the ensemble between the two years, the spatial extent and magnitude of exceedances varied significantly between the models. The reasons for this variation were examined in detail by first ranking the relative contribution of different sources of sulphur and nitrogen deposition in terms of deposited mass and model-to-model variability in that deposited mass, followed by their analysis using AQMEII4 diagnostics, along with evaluation of the most recent literature.
All models in both the North American and European ensembles had net annual negative biases with respect to observed wet deposition of sulphate, nitrate and ammonium. Diagnostics and recent literature suggest that this bias may stem from insufficient cloud scavenging of aerosols and gases, and may be improved through the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging within the modelling frameworks. The inability of North American models to predict the timing of the seasonal peak in wet ammonium ion deposition (observed maximum was in April, while all models predicted a June maximum) may also relate to the need for multiphase hydrometeor scavenging (absence of snow scavenging in all models employed here). High variability in the relative importance of particulate sulphate, nitrate and ammonium deposition fluxes between models was linked to the use of updated particle dry deposition parameterizations in some models. However, recent literature and further development of some of the models within the ensemble suggests these particulate biases may also be ameliorated via the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging. Annual sulphur and nitrogen deposition prediction variability was linked to SO2 and HNO3 dry deposition parameterizations, and diagnostic analysis showed that the cuticle and soil deposition pathways dominate the deposition mass flux of these species. Further work improving parameterizations for these deposition pathways should reduce variability in model acidifying gas deposition estimates. The absence of base cation chemistry in some models was shown to be a major factor in positive biases in fine mode particulate ammonium and particle nitrate concentrations. Models employing ammonia bidirectional fluxes had both the largest and the smallest magnitude biases, depending on the model and bidirectional flux algorithm employed. A careful analysis of bidirectional flux models suggests that those with poor NH3 performance may underestimate the extent of NH3 emissions fluxes from forested areas.
Based on these results, an increased process-research focus is therefore recommended for the following model processes and on observations which may assist in model evaluation and improvement: multiphase hydrometeor scavenging combined with updated particle dry deposition, cuticle and soil deposition pathway algorithms for acidifying gases, base cation chemistry and emissions, and NH3 bidirectional fluxes. Comparisons with satellite observations suggest that oceanic NH3 emissions sources should be included in regional chemical transport models. The choice of land use database employed within any given model was shown to significantly influence deposition totals in several instances, and employing a common land use database across chemical transport models and critical load calculations is recommended for future work.
- Preprint
(9534 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5400 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Sep 2024
General comment
- This manuscript, “Critical Load Exceedances for North America and Europe using an Ensemble of Models and an Investigation of Causes for Environmental Impact Estimate Variability: An AQMEII4 Study” presented by Maker et al., summarized their excellent work in the model intercomparison study of AQMEII4. The authors reported a comprehensive investigation regarding the model variability and suggested potential research directions for future studies. I believe that this kind of study is crucial to progressing our knowledge of the model themselves and their applications. Most of my comments are minor specific and technical comments for better reading and presentation quality; however, I would like to make one major request regarding the current manuscript.
Major comment
- As described in Section 2.0, model simulations over Europe were carried out in 2009 and 2010, which is why there is a large difference in the meteorological field. From this manuscript, I can follow the discussion in the U.S., which targeted a significant SO2 emission reduction between 2010 and 2016. However, from the result over Europe such as shown in Figs. 3 and 5 and Table 4, the difference between the years 2009 and 2010 was small. This discussion could be presented in other companion papers in AQMEII4 project, but one possible conclusion from this manuscript is that there is little impact on the estimates of critical loads despite the significant impact from the meteorological field? Actually, I did not fully figure out what was the most variated parameters (temperature, wind field, precipitation, etc.) between these years. For more information derived from this study, please consider including this point.
Specific comments
- L37 and L40: In the abstract, “New” is repeated, and this wording will be ambiguous. It will be better to use another specific term.
- L157-160: As written in L473-475, it is better to mention that this time is the year 2021 status explicitly.
- L177: For modelers, “process analysis” will be associated with the model-embedded process analysis tool (https://www.cmascenter.org/cmaq/science_documentation/pdf/ch16.pdf). Could you change the wording here?
- L198: In the latter part of the discussion, we can follow the wording “reduced ensemble”, but this term is suddenly used here without any introduction. Please rewrite or define this wording here.
- L416: What is “pant” here? Is this a typo of “plant”?
- L413-415: “A second model…” is described in L415, so “A first model” can be explicitly stated in L413?
- L423: For wide readers, “PRISM” should be shortly introduced.
- L476-477: Because the following sentences started from the U.S. and then stated Europe, it is better to change the position here (i.e., the years 2010 and 2016 for North America, and 2009 and 2010 for the European region).
- L549: This section introduced participating models. We can follow the result section (L708) from these descriptions, but I think it would be helpful for readers to summarize in a table which model was performed for which or both domains (Northern America and Europe).
- L961 (Fig. 14), L1397 (Fig. 22), L1422 (Fig. 23), L1490 (Fig. 24), L1667 (Fig. 27), and L1740 (Fig. 30 ): The gray grid indicated the negative value from the color bars; however, I think this is just out of the calculated domain.
- L1575 (Fig. 26): Because the color scale is based on blue-red bars, it is tough to distinguish blue and red lines, which indicate the predominant land use category. Please revise this figure.
Technical corrections
- L98: Please correct “A a”.
- L119: “simple mass balance (SMB) model” will be better.
- L224: No need “)”.
- L236, L239, and L240: Please use subscript for “PM2.5” and “PM10”.
- L335 (Table 1): Maybe there is no need for parenthesis in “source” description.
- L342, L339, L371, L393, and L408: For the consistent expression of the subsection name in L429 and L447, it could be used “:” like, “1.2.1 Canada: Aquatic Ecosystem Data”.
- L363 and L364: The charge for each ion should be presented.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2226-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2024
Through inter-comparison among models and comparison with monitoring results, the performance of CTM models for modeling S and N deposition in US and Europe was systematically evaluated. The critical load exceedance was further estimated based on the ensemble deposition simulation. It is of great importance that the future improvement of the models was suggested.
However, the paper is not a research report and is limited in length. Although critical loads were needed to calculate the exceedance by S and N deposition, the calculation method of critical load need not be detailed described in the main text, because only existing critical load databases were used in this study. Instead, relevant literature (or supplement) can be referred. There were too many figures and tables on the comparisons of modeling results in the paper. I suggest to make further summary and move most of them to the supplement.
In addition, the focus of this paper is on the uncertainty of critical load exceedance (CLE). Recognizing the uncertainty of deposition modeling, especially the underestimation of wet deposition, the degree of underestimation of CLE should be shown in the paper.
Some detailed comments are as follows:
Line 122-123: Deleting “, denitrification, nitrogen immobilization in the rooting zone, run-off volume, and a critical value of the non-sodium base cation to aluminum ion ratio”
Line 224: Delating “)”
Line 236: For the whole text, 10 in PM10 and 2.5 in PM2.5 should be in subscript.
Line 272: Moving detailed introduction on critical load to the supplement or delete.
Line 329, Figure 1: Adding explanation of the dashed lines.
Line 681-700: The text can be shorter with Table 3.
Line 892, Table 4: Can the emissions of major pollutants such as SO2, NOx and NH3 in each year be added? Also S and N deposition?
Line 1067: Changing “workT” to “work.”
Line 1103: Adding full point in the end.
Line 1170, Table 8: Moving this like tables to the supplement.
Line 1429: Missing “;” before ca.
Line 1438: Mission “.” After “AQMEII4”.
Line 1623: Deleting “HNO3 summer than”.
Line 1779: The conclusion can be shorter.
Line 1819: Here the underestimation of CLE caused by the bias of deposition modeling is of interest.
Line 1855: Same comment as above.
Line 1902: Same comment as above.
Line 1931: Same comment as above.
Line 2636: The reference is repeated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2226-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Paul Makar, 19 Dec 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Sep 2024
General comment
- This manuscript, “Critical Load Exceedances for North America and Europe using an Ensemble of Models and an Investigation of Causes for Environmental Impact Estimate Variability: An AQMEII4 Study” presented by Maker et al., summarized their excellent work in the model intercomparison study of AQMEII4. The authors reported a comprehensive investigation regarding the model variability and suggested potential research directions for future studies. I believe that this kind of study is crucial to progressing our knowledge of the model themselves and their applications. Most of my comments are minor specific and technical comments for better reading and presentation quality; however, I would like to make one major request regarding the current manuscript.
Major comment
- As described in Section 2.0, model simulations over Europe were carried out in 2009 and 2010, which is why there is a large difference in the meteorological field. From this manuscript, I can follow the discussion in the U.S., which targeted a significant SO2 emission reduction between 2010 and 2016. However, from the result over Europe such as shown in Figs. 3 and 5 and Table 4, the difference between the years 2009 and 2010 was small. This discussion could be presented in other companion papers in AQMEII4 project, but one possible conclusion from this manuscript is that there is little impact on the estimates of critical loads despite the significant impact from the meteorological field? Actually, I did not fully figure out what was the most variated parameters (temperature, wind field, precipitation, etc.) between these years. For more information derived from this study, please consider including this point.
Specific comments
- L37 and L40: In the abstract, “New” is repeated, and this wording will be ambiguous. It will be better to use another specific term.
- L157-160: As written in L473-475, it is better to mention that this time is the year 2021 status explicitly.
- L177: For modelers, “process analysis” will be associated with the model-embedded process analysis tool (https://www.cmascenter.org/cmaq/science_documentation/pdf/ch16.pdf). Could you change the wording here?
- L198: In the latter part of the discussion, we can follow the wording “reduced ensemble”, but this term is suddenly used here without any introduction. Please rewrite or define this wording here.
- L416: What is “pant” here? Is this a typo of “plant”?
- L413-415: “A second model…” is described in L415, so “A first model” can be explicitly stated in L413?
- L423: For wide readers, “PRISM” should be shortly introduced.
- L476-477: Because the following sentences started from the U.S. and then stated Europe, it is better to change the position here (i.e., the years 2010 and 2016 for North America, and 2009 and 2010 for the European region).
- L549: This section introduced participating models. We can follow the result section (L708) from these descriptions, but I think it would be helpful for readers to summarize in a table which model was performed for which or both domains (Northern America and Europe).
- L961 (Fig. 14), L1397 (Fig. 22), L1422 (Fig. 23), L1490 (Fig. 24), L1667 (Fig. 27), and L1740 (Fig. 30 ): The gray grid indicated the negative value from the color bars; however, I think this is just out of the calculated domain.
- L1575 (Fig. 26): Because the color scale is based on blue-red bars, it is tough to distinguish blue and red lines, which indicate the predominant land use category. Please revise this figure.
Technical corrections
- L98: Please correct “A a”.
- L119: “simple mass balance (SMB) model” will be better.
- L224: No need “)”.
- L236, L239, and L240: Please use subscript for “PM2.5” and “PM10”.
- L335 (Table 1): Maybe there is no need for parenthesis in “source” description.
- L342, L339, L371, L393, and L408: For the consistent expression of the subsection name in L429 and L447, it could be used “:” like, “1.2.1 Canada: Aquatic Ecosystem Data”.
- L363 and L364: The charge for each ion should be presented.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2226-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2024
Through inter-comparison among models and comparison with monitoring results, the performance of CTM models for modeling S and N deposition in US and Europe was systematically evaluated. The critical load exceedance was further estimated based on the ensemble deposition simulation. It is of great importance that the future improvement of the models was suggested.
However, the paper is not a research report and is limited in length. Although critical loads were needed to calculate the exceedance by S and N deposition, the calculation method of critical load need not be detailed described in the main text, because only existing critical load databases were used in this study. Instead, relevant literature (or supplement) can be referred. There were too many figures and tables on the comparisons of modeling results in the paper. I suggest to make further summary and move most of them to the supplement.
In addition, the focus of this paper is on the uncertainty of critical load exceedance (CLE). Recognizing the uncertainty of deposition modeling, especially the underestimation of wet deposition, the degree of underestimation of CLE should be shown in the paper.
Some detailed comments are as follows:
Line 122-123: Deleting “, denitrification, nitrogen immobilization in the rooting zone, run-off volume, and a critical value of the non-sodium base cation to aluminum ion ratio”
Line 224: Delating “)”
Line 236: For the whole text, 10 in PM10 and 2.5 in PM2.5 should be in subscript.
Line 272: Moving detailed introduction on critical load to the supplement or delete.
Line 329, Figure 1: Adding explanation of the dashed lines.
Line 681-700: The text can be shorter with Table 3.
Line 892, Table 4: Can the emissions of major pollutants such as SO2, NOx and NH3 in each year be added? Also S and N deposition?
Line 1067: Changing “workT” to “work.”
Line 1103: Adding full point in the end.
Line 1170, Table 8: Moving this like tables to the supplement.
Line 1429: Missing “;” before ca.
Line 1438: Mission “.” After “AQMEII4”.
Line 1623: Deleting “HNO3 summer than”.
Line 1779: The conclusion can be shorter.
Line 1819: Here the underestimation of CLE caused by the bias of deposition modeling is of interest.
Line 1855: Same comment as above.
Line 1902: Same comment as above.
Line 1931: Same comment as above.
Line 2636: The reference is repeated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2226-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2226', Paul Makar, 19 Dec 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
467 | 96 | 36 | 599 | 42 | 15 | 11 |
- HTML: 467
- PDF: 96
- XML: 36
- Total: 599
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1