Articles | Volume 23, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023
Research article
 | 
20 Jul 2023
Research article |  | 20 Jul 2023

An analysis of CMAQ gas-phase dry deposition over North America through grid-scale and land-use-specific diagnostics in the context of AQMEII4

Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Jonathan E. Pleim, Donna B. Schwede, Robert C. Gilliam, Kristen M. Foley, K. Wyat Appel, and Rohit Mathur

Related authors

Development of the MPAS-CMAQ Coupled System (V1.0) for Multiscale Global Air Quality Modeling
David C. Wong, Jeff Willison, Jonathan E. Pleim, Golam Sarwar, James Beidler, Russ Bullock, Jerold A. Herwehe, Rob Gilliam, Daiwen Kang, Christian Hogrefe, George Pouliot, and Hosein Foroutan
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-52,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-52, 2024
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Source specific bias correction of US background ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554, 2024
Short summary
Revisiting day-of-week ozone patterns in an era of evolving US air quality
Heather Simon, Christian Hogrefe, Andrew Whitehill, Kristen M. Foley, Jennifer Liljegren, Norm Possiel, Benjamin Wells, Barron H. Henderson, Lukas C. Valin, Gail Tonnesen, K. Wyat Appel, and Shannon Koplitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1855–1871, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024, 2024
Short summary
A single-point modeling approach for the intercomparison and evaluation of ozone dry deposition across chemical transport models (Activity 2 of AQMEII4)
Olivia E. Clifton, Donna Schwede, Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Sam Bland, Philip Cheung, Mhairi Coyle, Lisa Emberson, Johannes Flemming, Erick Fredj, Stefano Galmarini, Laurens Ganzeveld, Orestis Gazetas, Ignacio Goded, Christopher D. Holmes, László Horváth, Vincent Huijnen, Qian Li, Paul A. Makar, Ivan Mammarella, Giovanni Manca, J. William Munger, Juan L. Pérez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Limei Ran, Roberto San Jose, Sam J. Silva, Ralf Staebler, Shihan Sun, Amos P. K. Tai, Eran Tas, Timo Vesala, Tamás Weidinger, Zhiyong Wu, and Leiming Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9911–9961, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023, 2023
Short summary
Comparison of ozone formation attribution techniques in the northeastern United States
Qian Shu, Sergey L. Napelenok, William T. Hutzell, Kirk R. Baker, Barron H. Henderson, Benjamin N. Murphy, and Christian Hogrefe
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2303–2322, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
On the uncertainty of anthropogenic aromatic volatile organic compound emissions: model evaluation and sensitivity analysis
Kevin Oliveira, Marc Guevara, Oriol Jorba, Hervé Petetin, Dene Bowdalo, Carles Tena, Gilbert Montané Pinto, Franco López, and Carlos Pérez García-Pando
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7137–7177, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7137-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7137-2024, 2024
Short summary
A mechanism of stratospheric O3 intrusion into the atmospheric environment: a case study of the North China Plain
Yuehan Luo, Tianliang Zhao, Kai Meng, Jun Hu, Qingjian Yang, Yongqing Bai, Kai Yang, Weikang Fu, Chenghao Tan, Yifan Zhang, Yanzhe Zhang, and Zhikuan Li
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7013–7026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7013-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7013-2024, 2024
Short summary
Influence of atmospheric circulation on the interannual variability of transport from global and regional emissions into the Arctic
Cheng Zheng, Yutian Wu, Mingfang Ting, and Clara Orbe
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 6965–6985, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6965-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6965-2024, 2024
Short summary
Surface networks in the Arctic may miss a future methane bomb
Sophie Wittig, Antoine Berchet, Isabelle Pison, Marielle Saunois, and Jean-Daniel Paris
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 6359–6373, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6359-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6359-2024, 2024
Short summary
Potential of using CO2 observations over India in a regional carbon budget estimation by improving the modelling system
Vishnu Thilakan, Dhanyalekshmi Pillai, Jithin Sukumaran, Christoph Gerbig, Haseeb Hakkim, Vinayak Sinha, Yukio Terao, Manish Naja, and Monish Vijay Deshpande
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5315–5335, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5315-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5315-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Alapaty, K., Cheng, B., Bash, J., Munger, J. W., Walker, J. T., and Arunachalam, S.: Dry deposition methods based on turbulence kinetic energy: 1. Evaluation of various resistances and sensitivity studies using a single-point model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036631, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036631, 2022. 
Appel, K. W., Gilliam, R. C., Davis, N., Zubrow, A., and Howard, S. C.: Overview of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET) v1.1 for evaluating meteorological and air quality models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 434–443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.09.007, 2011. 
Appel, K. W., Chemel, C., Roselle, S. J., Francis, X. V., Hu, R.-M., Sokhi, R. S., Rao, S. T., and Galmarini, S.: Examination of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model Performance over the North American and European Domains, Atmos. Environ., 53, 142–155, 2012. 
Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore, A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schultz, M. G.: Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23073–23095, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807, 2001. 
Download
Short summary
Under the umbrella of the fourth phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), this study applies AQMEII4 diagnostic tools to better characterize how dry deposition removes pollutants from the atmosphere in the widely used CMAQ model. The results illustrate how these tools can provide insights into similarities and differences between the two CMAQ dry deposition options that affect simulated pollutant budgets and ecosystem impacts from atmospheric pollution.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint