Articles | Volume 22, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5775-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5775-2022
Research article
 | 
04 May 2022
Research article |  | 04 May 2022

Model evaluation of short-lived climate forcers for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme: a multi-species, multi-model study

Cynthia H. Whaley, Rashed Mahmood, Knut von Salzen, Barbara Winter, Sabine Eckhardt, Stephen Arnold, Stephen Beagley, Silvia Becagli, Rong-You Chien, Jesper Christensen, Sujay Manish Damani, Xinyi Dong, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos Evangeliou, Gregory Faluvegi, Mark Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Fabio Giardi, Wanmin Gong, Jens Liengaard Hjorth, Lin Huang, Ulas Im, Yugo Kanaya, Srinath Krishnan, Zbigniew Klimont, Thomas Kühn, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Andreas Massling, Dirk Olivié, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Yiran Peng, David A. Plummer, Olga Popovicheva, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Maria Sand, Laura N. Saunders, Julia Schmale, Sangeeta Sharma, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Henrik Skov, Fumikazu Taketani, Manu A. Thomas, Rita Traversi, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven Turnock, Vito Vitale, Kaley A. Walker, Minqi Wang, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Tahya Weiss-Gibbons

Related authors

A new lightning scheme in the Canadian Atmospheric Model (CanAM5.1): implementation, evaluation, and projections of lightning and fire in future climates
Cynthia Whaley, Montana Etten-Bohm, Courtney Schumacher, Ayodeji Akingunola, Vivek Arora, Jason Cole, Michael Lazare, David Plummer, Knut von Salzen, and Barbara Winter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7141–7155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, 2024
Short summary
HTAP3 Fires: Towards a multi-model, multi-pollutant study of fire impacts
Cynthia H. Whaley, Tim Butler, Jose A. Adame, Rupal Ambulkar, Stephen R. Arnold, Rebecca R. Buchholz, Benjamin Gaubert, Douglas S. Hamilton, Min Huang, Hayley Hung, Johannes W. Kaiser, Jacek W. Kaminski, Christophe Knote, Gerbrand Koren, Jean-Luc Kouassi, Meiyun Lin, Tianjia Liu, Jianmin Ma, Kasemsan Manomaiphiboon, Elisa Bergas Masso, Jessica L. McCarty, Mariano Mertens, Mark Parrington, Helene Peiro, Pallavi Saxena, Saurabh Sonwani, Vanisa Surapipith, Damaris Tan, Wenfu Tang, Veerachai Tanpipat, Kostas Tsigaridis, Christine Wiedinmyer, Oliver Wild, Yuanyu Xie, and Paquita Zuidema
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-126,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-126, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Evaluating modelled tropospheric columns of CH4, CO, and O3 in the Arctic using ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) measurements
Victoria A. Flood, Kimberly Strong, Cynthia H. Whaley, Kaley A. Walker, Thomas Blumenstock, James W. Hannigan, Johan Mellqvist, Justus Notholt, Mathias Palm, Amelie N. Röhling, Stephen Arnold, Stephen Beagley, Rong-You Chien, Jesper Christensen, Makoto Deushi, Srdjan Dobricic, Xinyi Dong, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Wanmin Gong, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Manu A. Thomas, Svetlana Tsyro, and Steven Turnock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1079–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1079-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1079-2024, 2024
Short summary
Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) trace gas measurements at the University of Toronto Atmospheric Observatory from 2002 to 2020
Shoma Yamanouchi, Stephanie Conway, Kimberly Strong, Orfeo Colebatch, Erik Lutsch, Sébastien Roche, Jeffrey Taylor, Cynthia H. Whaley, and Aldona Wiacek
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 3387–3418, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3387-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3387-2023, 2023
Short summary
Arctic tropospheric ozone: assessment of current knowledge and model performance
Cynthia H. Whaley, Kathy S. Law, Jens Liengaard Hjorth, Henrik Skov, Stephen R. Arnold, Joakim Langner, Jakob Boyd Pernov, Garance Bergeron, Ilann Bourgeois, Jesper H. Christensen, Rong-You Chien, Makoto Deushi, Xinyi Dong, Peter Effertz, Gregory Faluvegi, Mark Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Greg Huey, Ulas Im, Rigel Kivi, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Jeff Peischl, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Tom Ryerson, Ragnhild Skeie, Sverre Solberg, Manu A. Thomas, Chelsea Thompson, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven T. Turnock, Knut von Salzen, and David W. Tarasick
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 637–661, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-637-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-637-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Chemistry–climate feedback of atmospheric methane in a methane-emission-flux-driven chemistry–climate model
Laura Stecher, Franziska Winterstein, Patrick Jöckel, Michael Ponater, Mariano Mertens, and Martin Dameris
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 5133–5158, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5133-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5133-2025, 2025
Short summary
Surface ozone trend variability across the United States and the impact of heat waves (1990–2023)
Kai-Lan Chang, Brian C. McDonald, Colin Harkins, and Owen R. Cooper
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 5101–5132, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5101-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5101-2025, 2025
Short summary
Sensitivity of climate effects of hydrogen to leakage size, location, and chemical background
Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Marit Sandstad, Srinath Krishnan, Gunnar Myhre, and Maria Sand
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4929–4942, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4929-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4929-2025, 2025
Short summary
Evaluating tropospheric nitrogen dioxide in UKCA using OMI satellite retrievals over south and east Asia
Alok K. Pandey, David S. Stevenson, Alcide Zhao, Richard J. Pope, Ryan Hossaini, Krishan Kumar, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4785–4802, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4785-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Technical note: A comparative study of chemistry schemes for volcanic sulfur dioxide in Lagrangian transport simulations – a case study of the 2019 Raikoke eruption
Mingzhao Liu, Lars Hoffmann, Jens-Uwe Grooß, Zhongyin Cai, Sabine Grießbach, and Yi Heng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4403–4418, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4403-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4403-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation 3. Sectional representation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, AAC1.1–AAC1.6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000483, 2002. a
Alexander, B., Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., and Gong, S.: Transition metal-catalyzed oxidation of atmospheric sulfur: Global implications for the sulfur budget, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D02309, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010486, 2009. a
Allen, R. J. and Landuyt, W.: The vertical distribution of black carbon in CMIP5 models: Comparison to observations and the importance of convective transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 4808–4835, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021595, 2014. a
Amann, M., Bertok, I., Borken-Kleefled, J., Cofala, J., Heyes, C., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Klimont, Z., Nguyen, B., Posch, M., Rafaj, P., Sandler, R., Schöpp, W., Wagner, F., and Winiwarter, W.: Cost-effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases inEurope: Modelling and policy applications, Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 1489–1501, 2011. a
AMAP: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Assessment 2015: Black carbon and ozone as Arctic climate forcers, Technical report, AMAP, Oslo, Norway, vii + 116 pp., https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2015-black-carbon-and-ozone-as-arctic-climate-forcers/1299 (last access: 14 April 2022), 2015a. a, b, c, d, e
Download
Short summary
Air pollutants, like ozone and soot, play a role in both global warming and air quality. Atmospheric models are often used to provide information to policy makers about current and future conditions under different emissions scenarios. In order to have confidence in those simulations, in this study we compare simulated air pollution from 18 state-of-the-art atmospheric models to measured air pollution in order to assess how well the models perform.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint