the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Diagnostic Intercomparison of Modeled Ozone Dry Deposition Over North America and Europe Using AQMEII4 Regional-Scale Simulations
Abstract. This study analyzes ozone (O3) dry deposition fluxes and velocities (Vd) from regional-scale simulations that were performed over North America and Europe in Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). AQMEII4 collected grid-aggregated and land use (LU)-specific O3 Vd and effective conductances and fluxes for the four major dry deposition pathways. Consistent with recent findings in the AQMEII4 point model intercomparison study, analysis of the grid-aggregated fields shows that grid models with similar Vd can exhibit significant differences in the absolute and relative contributions of the different depositional pathways. Analysis of LU-specific Vd and effective conductances reveals a general increase in model spread compared to grid-aggregated values. This indicates that an analysis of only grid-aggregated deposition diagnostics can mask process-specific differences that exist between schemes. An analysis of AQMEII4 LU distributions across models revealed substantial differences in the spatial patterns and abundance of certain LU categories over both domains, especially for non-forest partially vegetated categories such as agricultural areas, shrubland, and grassland. We demonstrate that these differences can contribute to or even drive differences in LU-specific dry deposition fluxes. Two recommendations for future deposition-focused modeling studies emerging from the AQMEII4 analyses presented here are to 1) routinely generate diagnostic outputs to advance a process-based understanding of modeled deposition and support impact analyses, and 2) recognize the importance of documenting and analyzing the representation of LU across models and work towards harmonizing this aspect when using air-quality grid models and model ensembles for deposition analyses.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors (Stefano Galmarini) is an ACP editor.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(12055 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(18925 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-225', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Mar 2025
reply
The article "A Diagnostic Intercomparison of Modeled Ozone Dry Deposition Over North America and Europe using AQMEII4 Regional-Scale Simulations" by Hogrefe et al. is another of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative model comparisons, this one focused on dry deposition of ozone. The paper analyzes the ozone dry deposition fluxes and velocities from simulations over North America and Europe for 12 different model configurations.
The article is well written and presented and should be published with only very minor revisions. In fact, this reviewer had a difficult time finding much of anything to comment on. Corrections or suggestions for minor improvements are listed below:
- Throughout the article there are several places where "O3" occurs rather than the "O3".
- p. 3, line 75: "A companion paper in this issue .." ... I believe this refers to the previously cited Schwede et al., 2018, but it might also refer to a companion paper in the current issue. This ambiguity should be resolved.
- p. 17, line312: should be "... averaged over only those grid cells where a given model ..."
- pp. 22-24: The discussion here concerning Figure 10 is somewhat confusing because of the shorthand names given to the regional-scale simulation results vs the single point model results. For example, on p. 22, lines 369-370, single point models are referred to as "GEM-MACH Zhang" and "GEM-MACH Wesely", while in Figure 10 these models are labeled "SP GM Zhang BF/SP GM Zhang HF" and "SP GM Wesely BF/SP GM Wesely HF". Some additional thought should be given to making the names more consistent between the text and Figure 10.
- p. 36, line 587: should be "between 0.4 and 1.0 cm s-1 ..." (i.e., superscript "-1").
- Section " 4 Summary": The authors have done an excellent job of disentangling the effects of different LU types and LU datasets on the deposition results in this work. However, given the importance of the underlying LU data, I would think a general call for improved, commonly available high-resolution LU datasets would be appropriate. With the plethora of satellite datasets available today, a concerted effort to create better, publicly available LU datasets would reap significant benefits for air quality, weather and land surface models.
- Figures S12 an S13 in the supplement are of very poor quality and should be improved.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-225-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
130 | 20 | 6 | 156 | 17 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 130
- PDF: 20
- XML: 6
- Total: 156
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1