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

Drivers of change in peak-season surface ozone concentrations and impacts on human health over the historical period (1850–2014)
Steven T. Turnock, Dimitris Akritidis, Larry Horowitz, Mariano Mertens, Andrea Pozzer, Carly L. Reddington, Hantao Wang, Putian Zhou, and Fiona O'Connor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7111–7136, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7111-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7111-2025, 2025
Short summary
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

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Development of the CMA-GFS-AERO 4D-Var assimilation system v1.0 – Part 1: System description and preliminary experimental results
Yongzhu Liu, Xiaoye Zhang, Wei Han, Chao Wang, Wenxing Jia, Deying Wang, Zhaorong Zhuang, and Xueshun Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4855–4876, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4855-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4855-2025, 2025
Short summary
Optimized dynamic mode decomposition for reconstruction and forecasting of atmospheric chemistry data
Meghana Velagar, Christoph Keller, and J. Nathan Kutz
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4667–4684, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4667-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4667-2025, 2025
Short summary
Interpolating turbulent heat fluxes missing from a prairie observation on the Tibetan Plateau using artificial intelligence models
Quanzhe Hou, Zhiqiu Gao, Zexia Duan, and Minghui Yu
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4625–4641, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4625-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4625-2025, 2025
Short summary
Carbon dioxide plume dispersion simulated at the hectometer scale using DALES: model formulation and observational evaluation
Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Fredrik Jansson, Bart J. H. van Stratum, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Jordi Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4571–4599, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4571-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4571-2025, 2025
Short summary
Low-level jets in the North and Baltic seas: mesoscale model sensitivity and climatology using WRF V4.2.1
Bjarke T. E. Olsen, Andrea N. Hahmann, Nicolas G. Alonso-de-Linaje, Mark Žagar, and Martin Dörenkämper
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4499–4533, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025, 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