Articles | Volume 12, issue 8
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3641–3648, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3641-2019
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3641–3648, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3641-2019
Methods for assessment of models
22 Aug 2019
Methods for assessment of models | 22 Aug 2019

Systematic bias in evaluating chemical transport models with maximum daily 8 h average (MDA8) surface ozone for air quality applications: a case study with GEOS-Chem v9.02

Katherine R. Travis and Daniel J. Jacob

Related authors

Tropospheric NO2 vertical profiles over South Korea and their relation to oxidant chemistry: Implications for geostationary satellite retrievals and the observation of NO2 diurnal variation from space
Laura Hyesung Yang, Daniel J. Jacob, Nadia K. Colombi, Shixian Zhai, Kelvin H. Bates, Viral Shah, Ellie Beaudry, Robert M. Yantosca, Haipeng Lin, Jared F. Brewer, Heesung Chong, Katherine R. Travis, James H. Crawford, Lok Lamsal, Ja-Ho Koo, and Jhoon Kim
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1309,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1309, 2022
Short summary
Limitations in representation of physical processes prevent successful simulation of PM2.5 during KORUS-AQ
Katherine R. Travis, James H. Crawford, Gao Chen, Carolyn E. Jordan, Benjamin A. Nault, Hwajin Kim, Jose L. Jimenez, Pedro Campuzano-Jost, Jack E. Dibb, Jung-Hun Woo, Younha Kim, Shixian Zhai, Xuan Wang, Erin E. McDuffie, Gan Luo, Fangqun Yu, Saewung Kim, Isobel J. Simpson, Donald R. Blake, Limseok Chang, and Michelle J. Kim
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7933–7958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7933-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7933-2022, 2022
Short summary
Evidence of haze-driven secondary production of supermicrometer aerosol nitrate and sulfate in size distribution data in South Korea
Joseph S. Schlosser, Connor Stahl, Armin Sorooshian, Yen Thi-Hoang Le, Ki-Joon Jeon, Peng Xian, Carolyn E. Jordan, Katherine R. Travis, James H. Crawford, Sung Yong Gong, Hye-Jung Shin, In-Ho Song, and Jong-sang Youn
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7505–7522, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7505-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7505-2022, 2022
Short summary
Relating geostationary satellite measurements of aerosol optical depth (AOD) over East Asia to fine particulate matter (PM2.5): insights from the KORUS-AQ aircraft campaign and GEOS-Chem model simulations
Shixian Zhai, Daniel J. Jacob, Jared F. Brewer, Ke Li, Jonathan M. Moch, Jhoon Kim, Seoyoung Lee, Hyunkwang Lim, Hyun Chul Lee, Su Keun Kuk, Rokjin J. Park, Jaein I. Jeong, Xuan Wang, Pengfei Liu, Gan Luo, Fangqun Yu, Jun Meng, Randall V. Martin, Katherine R. Travis, Johnathan W. Hair, Bruce E. Anderson, Jack E. Dibb, Jose L. Jimenez, Pedro Campuzano-Jost, Benjamin A. Nault, Jung-Hun Woo, Younha Kim, Qiang Zhang, and Hong Liao
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16775–16791, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16775-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16775-2021, 2021
Short summary
Constraining remote oxidation capacity with ATom observations
Katherine R. Travis, Colette L. Heald, Hannah M. Allen, Eric C. Apel, Stephen R. Arnold, Donald R. Blake, William H. Brune, Xin Chen, Róisín Commane, John D. Crounse, Bruce C. Daube, Glenn S. Diskin, James W. Elkins, Mathew J. Evans, Samuel R. Hall, Eric J. Hintsa, Rebecca S. Hornbrook, Prasad S. Kasibhatla, Michelle J. Kim, Gan Luo, Kathryn McKain, Dylan B. Millet, Fred L. Moore, Jeffrey Peischl, Thomas B. Ryerson, Tomás Sherwen, Alexander B. Thames, Kirk Ullmann, Xuan Wang, Paul O. Wennberg, Glenn M. Wolfe, and Fangqun Yu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 7753–7781, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7753-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7753-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Implementation of HONO into the chemistry–climate model CHASER (V4.0): roles in tropospheric chemistry
Phuc Thi Minh Ha, Yugo Kanaya, Fumikazu Taketani, Maria Dolores Andrés Hernández, Benjamin Schreiner, Klaus Pfeilsticker, and Kengo Sudo
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 927–960, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-927-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Isoprene and monoterpene simulations using the chemistry–climate model EMAC (v2.55) with interactive vegetation from LPJ-GUESS (v4.0)
Ryan Vella, Matthew Forrest, Jos Lelieveld, and Holger Tost
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 885–906, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-885-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-885-2023, 2023
Short summary
A modern-day Mars climate in the Met Office Unified Model: dry simulations
Danny McCulloch, Denis E. Sergeev, Nathan Mayne, Matthew Bate, James Manners, Ian Boutle, Benjamin Drummond, and Kristzian Kohary
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 621–657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-621-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-621-2023, 2023
Short summary
The AirGAM 2022r1 air quality trend and prediction model
Sam-Erik Walker, Sverre Solberg, Philipp Schneider, and Cristina Guerreiro
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 573–595, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-573-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-573-2023, 2023
Short summary
Evaluation of a cloudy cold-air pool in the Columbia River basin in different versions of the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model
Bianca Adler, James M. Wilczak, Jaymes Kenyon, Laura Bianco, Irina V. Djalalova, Joseph B. Olson, and David D. Turner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 597–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-597-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-597-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Altimir, N., Kolari, P., Tuovinen, J.-P., Vesala, T., Bäck, J., Suni, T., Kulmala, M., and Hari, P.: Foliage surface ozone deposition: a role for surface moisture?, Biogeosciences, 3, 209–228, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-3-209-2006, 2006. 
Anderson, D. C., Loughner, C. P., Diskin, G., Weinheimer, A., Canty, T. P., Salawitch, R. J., Worden, H. M., Fried, A., Mikoviny, T., Wisthaler, A., and Dickerson, R. R.: Measured and modeled CO and NOy in DISCOVER-AQ: An evaluation of emissions and chemistry over the eastern US, Atmos. Environ., 96, 78–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.004, 2014. 
Bowdalo, D. R., Evans, M. J., and Sofen, E. D.: Spectral analysis of atmospheric composition: application to surface ozone model–measurement comparisons, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8295–8308, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8295-2016, 2016. 
Brasseur, G. P. and Jacob, D. J.: Modeling of Atmospheric Chemistry, Cambridge University Press, 2017. 
Download
Short summary
Models of ozone air pollution are often evaluated with the policy metric set by the EPA of the maximum daily 8 h average ozone concentration. These models may be used in policy settings to evaluate air quality regulations. However, most models have difficulty simulating how ozone varies over the course of the day, and thus the use of this metric in model evaluation is problematic. Improved representation of mixed layer dynamics and ozone loss to the surface is needed to resolve this issue.