Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-363-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-363-2020
Development and technical paper
 | 
31 Jan 2020
Development and technical paper |  | 31 Jan 2020

Are contributions of emissions to ozone a matter of scale? – a study using MECO(n) (MESSy v2.50)

Mariano Mertens, Astrid Kerkweg, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, and Robert Sausen

Related authors

HTAP3 Fires: towards a multi-model, multi-pollutant study of fire impacts
Cynthia H. Whaley, Tim Butler, Jose A. Adame, Rupal Ambulkar, Steve R. Arnold, Rebecca R. Buchholz, Benjamin Gaubert, Douglas S. Hamilton, Min Huang, Hayley Hung, Johannes W. Kaiser, Jacek W. Kaminski, Christoph 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 Y. T. Tan, Wenfu Tang, Veerachai Tanpipat, Kostas Tsigaridis, Christine Wiedinmyer, Oliver Wild, Yuanyu Xie, and Paquita Zuidema
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3265–3309, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3265-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3265-2025, 2025
Short summary
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
Effects of different emission inventories on tropospheric ozone and methane lifetime
Catherine Acquah, Laura Stecher, Mariano Mertens, and Patrick Jöckel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-294,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-294, 2025
Short summary
Airborne in situ quantification of methane emissions from oil and gas production in Romania
Hossein Maazallahi, Foteini Stavropoulou, Samuel Jonson Sutanto, Michael Steiner, Dominik Brunner, Mariano Mertens, Patrick Jöckel, Antoon Visschedijk, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Stijn Dellaert, Nataly Velandia Salinas, Stefan Schwietzke, Daniel Zavala-Araiza, Sorin Ghemulet, Alexandru Pana, Magdalena Ardelean, Marius Corbu, Andreea Calcan, Stephen A. Conley, Mackenzie L. Smith, and Thomas Röckmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1497–1511, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025, 2025
Short summary
Ozone source attribution in polluted European areas during summer 2017 as simulated with MECO(n)
Markus Kilian, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Mariano Mertens, Andreas Zahn, and Helmut Ziereis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13503–13523, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13503-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13503-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Knowledge-inspired fusion strategies for the inference of PM2.5 values with a neural network
Matthieu Dabrowski, José Mennesson, Jérôme Riedi, Chaabane Djeraba, and Pierre Nabat
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3707–3733, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025, 2025
Short summary
Tuning the ICON-A 2.6.4 climate model with machine-learning-based emulators and history matching
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
Short summary
A novel method for quantifying the contribution of regional transport to PM2.5 in Beijing (2013–2020): combining machine learning with concentration-weighted trajectory analysis
Kang Hu, Hong Liao, Dantong Liu, Jianbing Jin, Lei Chen, Siyuan Li, Yangzhou Wu, Changhao Wu, Shitong Zhao, Xiaotong Jiang, Ping Tian, Kai Bi, Ye Wang, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3623–3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantification of CO2 hotspot emissions from OCO-3 SAM CO2 satellite images using deep learning methods
Joffrey Dumont Le Brazidec, Pierre Vanderbecken, Alban Farchi, Grégoire Broquet, Gerrit Kuhlmann, and Marc Bocquet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3607–3622, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025, 2025
Short summary
Diagnosis of winter precipitation types using the spectral bin model (version 1DSBM-19M): comparison of five methods using ICE-POP 2018 field experiment data
Wonbae Bang, Jacob T. Carlin, Kwonil Kim, Alexander V. Ryzhkov, Guosheng Liu, and GyuWon Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3559–3581, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3559-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3559-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Butler, T., Lupascu, A., Coates, J., and Zhu, S.: TOAST 1.0: Tropospheric Ozone Attribution of Sources with Tagging for CESM 1.2.2, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2825–2840, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2825-2018, 2018. a
Christensen, J. H., Carter, T. R., Rummukainen, M., and Amanatidis, G.: Evaluating the performance and utility of regional climate models: the PRUDENCE project, Clim. Change, 81, 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9211-6, 2007. a
Clappier, A., Belis, C. A., Pernigotti, D., and Thunis, P.: Source apportionment and sensitivity analysis: two methodologies with two different purposes, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4245–4256, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017, 2017. a
Dahlmann, K., Grewe, V., Ponater, M., and Matthes, S.: Quantifying the contributions of individual NOx sources to the trend in ozone radiative forcing, Atmos. Environ., 45, 2860–2868, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.071, 2011. a
Deckert, R., Jöckel, P., Grewe, V., Gottschaldt, K.-D., and Hoor, P.: A quasi chemistry-transport model mode for EMAC, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 195–206, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-195-2011, 2011. a
Download
Short summary
This study investigates if ozone source apportionment results using a tagged tracer approach depend on the resolutions of the applied model and/or emission inventory. For this we apply a global to regional atmospheric chemistry model, which allows us to compare the results on global and regional scales. Our results show that differences on the continental scale (e.g. Europe) are rather small (10 %); on the regional scale, however, differences of up to 30 % were found.
Share