the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Sep 2025
Evaluation of atmospheric sulfur dioxide simulated with the EMAC (version 2.55) Chemistry-Climate Model using satellite and ground-based observations
Abstract. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a key atmospheric pollutant, primarily emitted through human activities such as fossil fuel combustion. In atmospheric models, accurate representation of SO2 emission sources, transport, and removal processes are essential for evaluating air quality and radiative forcing.
In this study, we present, for the first time, a comprehensive examination of atmospheric SO2 simulated by the ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) model. First, the tropospheric sulfur budget simulated by EMAC is verified to be close, that is, all sulfur sources and sinks are balanced, ensuring no artificial gain or loss occurs over time due to numerical or conceptual errors. This budget closure is a prerequisite for any further analysis. Second, the results of EMAC simulations are compared with observations from three ground-based networks (the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTnet), the European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (EMEP), and the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET)), mainly over polluted regions, and with vertical column densities retrieved from a TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) on board the Copernicus Sentinel-5 Precursor mission (Sentinel-5P) satellite. The EMAC simulated SO2 concentrations near the Earth’s surface for the year 2019 are, depending on the region, between 1.4 and 1.8 times larger than observed. This discrepancy aligns well with the differences between simulated and retrieved satellite-based measurements of SO2 vertical column densities over the same regions. It indicates that the prescribed SO2 emissions used for the EMAC simulations might be overestimated. Over a longer time period (2000–2019), the EMAC simulation reproduces the measured declining trends of SO2 concentrations and deposited sulfur fluxes in the USA and Europe, but fails to simulate the observed trends in East Asia. This is most likely attributable to the prescribed SO2 emission inventories. Furthermore, sensitivity simulations are performed to assess the emitted amount of SO2 following the Raikoke and Ulawun volcanic eruptions in 2019. The results show a very good agreement of the simulated temporal evolution of the amount of atmospheric SO2 after the eruptions with that retrieved from satellite-based observations.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
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
(5478 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5478 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3915', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3915/egusphere-2025-3915-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3915', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Oct 2025
This manuscript comprehensively evaluates sulfur dioxide in the EMAC chemistry-climate model. This is done by first verifying that the sulfur cycle is closed, meaning mass is neither lost nor gained. The SO2 depositions and vertical column densities are then evaluated with a set of ground-based and satellite observations. The structure of the manuscript is generally very well laid out and the methods are explained thoroughly and well executed. However, there are some areas where more concrete explanations are needed.
P4, L90: The authors mention that the aerosol is not interactive in the simulations used for this study and refer to the aerosol radiative effects and heterogeneous chemistry. Is sulfate aerosol represented in some form in these simulations? If so, please state for clarity. If not, what does this imply for the sulfur cycle?
P16, Figure 5: Looking at this figure, the SO2 burden appears to decline exponentially in the TROPOMI retrieval, whereas all model simulations depict a more gradual, almost linear decay. The authors elaborate that the differences might stem from repetitive injections of SO2 into the atmosphere. However, the different changes in the decline rates suggest a difference in removal processes as well.Fig 7, 9, 11: The near surface SO2 concentrations in EMAC seem to be more spread out, is there an underestimation of initial removal close to the source or could it be related to how SO2 is emitted in the model or could the distribution be “flatter” due to e.g. numerical diffusion?
Minor comments:
L6: close → closed
L6-8: This sentence is a bit long and confusing
L60: Jöckel et al. in parentheses
L89: isopren → isoprene
Table 4: Biomasse → Biomass
L204: citet → cited
L230: comparatative → comparative
L365: heve → have
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3915-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3915/egusphere-2025-3915-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3915', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2025
General comments
This manuscript is a thorough evaluation of the EMAC v2.55 sulfur simulations and makes a useful contribution by (i) closing a model‑internal sulfur budget (ii) documenting how the model compares with satellite data in 2019 to evaluate how it responds to volcanic emissions and (iii) evaluating against long‑term measurements, 2010–2019
The paper is well organized and generally clear. However, it is unnecessarily long, and the presentation of results is at times too detailed, making it difficult to extract the main messages and scientific significance. The description of the model setup partly repeats work published elsewhere, and it is not entirely clear what is new compared to earlier model versions (e.g., Jöckel et al., 2016). For the interactive gas–particle chemistry, more detail would be beneficial, as the current description is incomplete for interpreting SO₂ lifetime and deposition. I.e. the statement that “the simulation did not involve an interactive aerosol submodel” needs clarification. Does this mean that interactions with ammonia are excluded? If so, this should be explicitly stated, as ammonia strongly influences sulfur oxidation pathways, cloud pH, and the partitioning and deposition of sulfur.
Specific comments
- For the emissions it is important to notice that earlier global inventory for China have underestimated the reductions after around 2010. I am not sure if CMIP6 emissions have taken this into account? In Line 35 it is written that the emissions in China remain high, which is true, but the authors should also mention the substantial reductions in recent years.
- Why is the comparison made with EDGAR 5 instead of the more recent EDGAR 6.1 (2024)? Using EDGAR 6.1 would enable comparison over the full 2000–2019 period. It would strengthen the analysis to run short sensitivity tests (1–2 simulations) using alternative inventories (e.g., EDGAR 6.1) to quantify whether biases in CMIP6 emissions explain the overestimation. If such tests are beyond the study’s scope, this limitation should at least be discussed.
- Why are you not comparing to the more recent EDGAR6.1 (from 2024) instead of EDGAR5? Then you would be able to compare it with the whole 2000-2019 period. It would have been useful to run the model with EDGAR and not only compare the emissions inventory to evaluate more directly if it biases in the CMIP6 emissions that cause the overestimation. Not necessarily a full rerun of the model but quantify the bias by re‑running 1–2 short sensitivity test with different emissions. Though I understand if this is beyond the capacity of this work.
- Sulfur data from Africa (INDAAF; https://indaaf.obs-mip.fr) and from Canada (CAPMoN) could have been included to provide a more complete global picture. In the U.S., CASTNET is responsible for air and aerosol data, whereas wet deposition data originate from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). It appears NADP data were used, but this is not stated explicitly. NADP also includes many more sites than those used here.
- The model response to volcanic emissions is evaluated only against TROPOMI satellite data. You write that “it is difficult to ascertain whether the differences originate near the surface or higher up in the atmosphere.” It would strengthen the analysis to use in-situ data from 2019, which are available for that year and would allow a more direct comparison.
- It is not written how trends were calculated, i.e. linear regression, Sen’s Slope . Mann Kendall. This should be added to the methods
- For trend comparisons, it would be appropriate to refer to regional studies covering similar periods. Some suggestions:
- In Europe recent work done by EMEP: https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.230237. Seems like you have somewhat larger trend for SO2 (0.05 ug/m3/y) compared to EMEP (0.034 ug/m3/y). The difference may stem from site selection, trend method, or emissions used.
- Several studies in North America. Eg.: NADP data: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119783, CASTNet: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12749-2022 and from Canada by CAPMoN: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14631-2022
- Japan: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117842
- China: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198815
Technical corrections/spelling errors
- Line 70: “caclulated” to calculated
- Line 80-81: “sun‑synchrinously” to sun‑
- Line 89: “isopren to isoprene.
- Line 146: “histrotical” to historical.
- Line 149: “soley” to solely.
- Line 230: “comparatative“ to comparative.
- Line 260: “correpsonding” to corresponding.
- Line 294: “drived“ to derived
- Line 328: “depostion“ to deposition
- Line 364: “heve” to have.
- Line 543; “cylce“ to cycle
- Line 604: “retrieveal” to retrieval.
- Line 658: “resepctively“ to respectively.
- Line 723: “anlyses” to analyses
- Line 724: “caclualted” to calculated
- Line 746 “undr” to under. Multiple instances of “acces” and “reslts” to be replaced with access and results.
- Table 2 caption: “aersol” to aerosol.
- Figure caption 12. EMEP should be replaced with EANET
- Standardize Tg(S)/yr vs Tg(S)/a
- There is a mix of units used for air concentration and fluxes (e.g., µg m⁻³ vs mmol m⁻² and kgS/ha). These should be standardized throughout the paper for clarity and comparability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3915-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3915/egusphere-2025-3915-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3915', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Oct 2025
This manuscript comprehensively evaluates sulfur dioxide in the EMAC chemistry-climate model. This is done by first verifying that the sulfur cycle is closed, meaning mass is neither lost nor gained. The SO2 depositions and vertical column densities are then evaluated with a set of ground-based and satellite observations. The structure of the manuscript is generally very well laid out and the methods are explained thoroughly and well executed. However, there are some areas where more concrete explanations are needed.
P4, L90: The authors mention that the aerosol is not interactive in the simulations used for this study and refer to the aerosol radiative effects and heterogeneous chemistry. Is sulfate aerosol represented in some form in these simulations? If so, please state for clarity. If not, what does this imply for the sulfur cycle?
P16, Figure 5: Looking at this figure, the SO2 burden appears to decline exponentially in the TROPOMI retrieval, whereas all model simulations depict a more gradual, almost linear decay. The authors elaborate that the differences might stem from repetitive injections of SO2 into the atmosphere. However, the different changes in the decline rates suggest a difference in removal processes as well.Fig 7, 9, 11: The near surface SO2 concentrations in EMAC seem to be more spread out, is there an underestimation of initial removal close to the source or could it be related to how SO2 is emitted in the model or could the distribution be “flatter” due to e.g. numerical diffusion?
Minor comments:
L6: close → closed
L6-8: This sentence is a bit long and confusing
L60: Jöckel et al. in parentheses
L89: isopren → isoprene
Table 4: Biomasse → Biomass
L204: citet → cited
L230: comparatative → comparative
L365: heve → have
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3915-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3915/egusphere-2025-3915-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Jöckel, 26 Nov 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
RD1SD: EMAC CCMI-2022 hindcast simulations with specified dynamics, ERA-5, 1979-2019 P. Jöckel et al. https://doi.org/10.26050/WDCC/ESCiMo2_RD1SD
RD1SD: EMAC CCMI-2022 hindcast simulations with specified dynamics, ERA-5, 1979-2019 (additional data) P. Jöckel et al. https://www.wdc-climate.de/ui/entry?acronym=DKRZ_LTA_853_dsg0002
SO2 data of EMAC sensitivity simulations (eruption of Mt. Raikoke, 2019) I. Makroum et al. https://zenodo.org/records/15655676
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,470 | 135 | 23 | 1,628 | 19 | 22 |
- HTML: 1,470
- PDF: 135
- XML: 23
- Total: 1,628
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ismail Makroum
Patrick Jöckel
Martin Dameris
Nicolas Theys
Johannes De Leeuw
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5478 KB) - Metadata XML
General comments
This manuscript is a thorough evaluation of the EMAC v2.55 sulfur simulations and makes a useful contribution by (i) closing a model‑internal sulfur budget (ii) documenting how the model compares with satellite data in 2019 to evaluate how it responds to volcanic emissions and (iii) evaluating against long‑term measurements, 2010–2019
The paper is well organized and generally clear. However, it is unnecessarily long, and the presentation of results is at times too detailed, making it difficult to extract the main messages and scientific significance. The description of the model setup partly repeats work published elsewhere, and it is not entirely clear what is new compared to earlier model versions (e.g., Jöckel et al., 2016). For the interactive gas–particle chemistry, more detail would be beneficial, as the current description is incomplete for interpreting SO₂ lifetime and deposition. I.e. the statement that “the simulation did not involve an interactive aerosol submodel” needs clarification. Does this mean that interactions with ammonia are excluded? If so, this should be explicitly stated, as ammonia strongly influences sulfur oxidation pathways, cloud pH, and the partitioning and deposition of sulfur.
Specific comments
Technical corrections/spelling errors