the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment of WRF-GHG model simulations during the CAFE-Brazil Campaign in Amazonia
Abstract. The Amazon Basin plays an important role in the global climate and carbon budget, with natural emissions and removals of CO2 and CH4 prevailing in the wet season. Accurate modeling of the transport of greenhouse gases (GHG) is essential for understanding the contributions of sources, sinks, and atmospheric processes. High-resolution atmospheric models offer a compromise between computational cost and physical realism, capturing mesoscale processes that influence GHG transport in the Amazon. We evaluate the WRF-GHG model (Weather Research and Forecasting Model with GHG module) using CO2 and CH4 measurements from the Amazon Tall Tower Observatory (ATTO) and aircraft observations during the CAFE-Brazil campaign in January 2023. Simulations employed two domains centered at ATTO, with MapBiomas land cover data, region-specific parameters for CO2 biogenic emissions and removals, and multiple wetland CH4 emission configurations. Comparisons with ATTO indicate that the regionally adapted biogenic flux parameterizations improved the representation of CO2 and net ecosystem exchange (NEE). For CH4, CAMS Inversion-optimized flux product best reproduces observed concentrations, while the Kaplan diagnostic model and WetCHARTs inventories overestimate near-surface mole fractions. The model predicts diurnal CH4 fluctuations, controlled by boundary-layer dynamics and atmospheric transport, that were not observed at ATTO. Comparisons with CAFE-Brazil aircraft data indicated regional wetland sources and wind-driven transport driving the observed CH4 enhancements. These findings underscore the importance of improving the parameterization of biogenic fluxes to enhance the capability of models in complex tropical environments like the Amazon Basin and to accurately describe the complex circulation between rivers, upland areas, and floodplains.
- Preprint
(8885 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(15064 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Jun 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-979', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 May 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 264 | 155 | 18 | 437 | 205 | 28 | 35 |
- HTML: 264
- PDF: 155
- XML: 18
- Total: 437
- Supplement: 205
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents an evaluation of the WRF-GHG model over the Brazilian Amazon during the wet season, using a rich combination of tower-based and aircraft observations from the CAFE-Brazil campaign. The study addresses an important scientific problem (GHG transport and flux representation in tropical regions) by integrating WRF-GHG with updated land-cover data, regionally calibrated biogenic fluxes, and multiple wetland emission inventories. The paper is scientifically sound, however, the manuscript can be improved in many aspects.
The manuscript contains many valuable analyses, but the central take-home messages are sometimes diluted by the volume of material. Early in the Introduction (end of Section 1), explicitly state 3–4 core hypotheses or questions can be helpful. For example: To what extent are CO2 and CH4 mismatches dominated by transport vs. flux errors? Does kilometer-scale resolution meaningfully improve GHG simulations in Amazonia under convective conditions?
A recurring theme is that meteorological biases dominate tracer errors, particularly for CH4. While this is plausible and supported by evidence, the attribution is sometimes qualitative. Where possible, quantify transport sensitivity more explicitly, for example by showing tracer simulations with identical fluxes but different wind/PBL configurations (even if only briefly in the Supplement), or by explicitly stating how much of the CH4 bias at ATTO can be explained by wind-direction errors during key events.
The manuscript notes that the observed CH4 signal at ATTO shows minimal diurnal variability, while simulations show a pronounced cycle driven by PBL dynamics. However, the discussion sometimes implies that this is primarily a model failure. Is it possible that this can be a combination of alternative factors, such as weak local sources, tall tower sampling above canopy, and persistent regional background dominance?
Line 111: “trace gases”
Line 134: “initial conditions”
Line 262: “gases”
Line 449: “This does not mean”