Biogenic isoprene emissions driven by regional weather predictions using different initialization methods: case studies during the SEAC<sup>4</sup>RS and DISCOVER-AQ airborne campaigns

Huang, Min; Carmichael, Gregory R.; Crawford, James H.; Wisthaler, Armin; Zhan, Xiwu; Hain, Christopher R.; Lee, Pius; Guenther, Alex B.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3085-2017

Articles | Volume 10, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3085-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3085-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 8

Model evaluation paper

|

21 Aug 2017

Model evaluation paper |

| 21 Aug 2017

Biogenic isoprene emissions driven by regional weather predictions using different initialization methods: case studies during the SEAC⁴RS and DISCOVER-AQ airborne campaigns

Min Huang, Gregory R. Carmichael, James H. Crawford, Armin Wisthaler, Xiwu Zhan, Christopher R. Hain, Pius Lee, and Alex B. Guenther

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Aug 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of doi:10.5194/gmd-2017-13 by Huang et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Review of Huang et al. GMD 2017', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 May 2017
AC1: 'Response to both Referees' comments', Min Huang, 23 Jun 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Min Huang on behalf of the Authors (24 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Jun 2017) by Gerd A. Folberth

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Jul 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

My only substantive comments have to do with Table 2 and the discussion around PBLH. It is not clear to me why no attempt was made to compare the modeled PBLH to the DIAL-HSRL data, given the authors have access to these data and show them in Fig. 2a. They already extract other variables along the flight track, so also extract PBLH and providing some quantitative evaluation against the measurements seems both feasible and necessary.

Along these lines, the Table 2 & 3 captions are not correct (with current table contents), as they state they show the ‘air temperature and PBLH performance’ – but in reality they show air temperature performance and modeled PBLH values (not performance as it has not be evaluated). Of course, if this is changed the include PBLH comparison metrics against the observations, this point is no longer relevant.

Finally, it is not clear why Table 2 does not show the surface air temperature mean bias like Table 3 does. I do not see any reason for these two tables to use different temperature metrics.

Minor comments:
P6 L20-21: Add the reference provided in the response to reviewers

P7 L3: Rate constant should be in scientific notation: 1.01x10^-10

P7 L5: after qualitatively evaluated --> after qualitative evaluation OR after being qualitatively evaluated

P7 L20: accuracy of +/-5% -- is there a reference for this?

P7 L30: north to --> north of

P7 L34: located in downtown Houston area --> located in downtown Houston OR located in the downtown Houston area

P8 L1: suggest replacing biogenic with isoprene here, as monoterpene emissions are not necessarily at a miminum overnight

P8 L15: in the eastern Texas --> in eastern Texas

P8 L17: missing units for predicted OH value on 11 Sep

P8 L18 of the close magnitudes --> close in magnitude

P8 L21: range from --> ranged from

P8 L22: along the P-3B -- missing a word; perhaps along the P-3B flight track?

P10 L3: on a specific day of 11 September --> on the specific day of 11 September, or better yet just on 11 September

P10 L10: at around the Conroe site --> around the Conroe site

P10 L20: same comment as before about changing biogenic to isoprene (or biogenic isoprene)

P11 L22: significantly changes --> significant changes

P12 L28 & elsewhere: daytime-integrated emissions are mentioned but never provided. A table with these values would make the text in this section easier to follow.

P14 L22: radiation product --> radiation products

P15 L13: could the 10-20% overestimate of the observation-derived estimates explain some of the previously described underestimate of the 4-km run? This would be worth noting.

P15 L20: of the similar magnitude --> of similar magnitude

P16 L6: Suggest starting a new paragraph at ‘This study emphasizes the importance…’

P16 L14: variability of the atmospheric composition --> variability of atmospheric composition

P34 Fig. 8 caption: Specify that the model results are from the 12 km NUWRF ctrl run. Also comparing with should be compared with.

P35 Table 1 caption: descriptions on --> descriptions of

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (10 Jul 2017) by Gerd A. Folberth

AR by Min Huang on behalf of the Authors (13 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Jul 2017) by Gerd A. Folberth

AR by Min Huang on behalf of the Authors (18 Jul 2017) Manuscript

Short summary

Various sensitivity simulations during two airborne campaigns were performed to assess the impact of different initialization methods and model resolutions on NUWRF-modeled weather states, heat fluxes, and the follow-on MEGAN isoprene emission calculations. Proper land initialization is shown to be important to the coupled weather modeling and the follow-on emission modeling, which is also critical to accurately representing other processes in air quality modeling and data assimilation.

Biogenic isoprene emissions driven by regional weather predictions using different initialization methods: case studies during the SEAC4RS and DISCOVER-AQ airborne campaigns

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Biogenic isoprene emissions driven by regional weather predictions using different initialization methods: case studies during the SEAC⁴RS and DISCOVER-AQ airborne campaigns