Articles | Volume 13, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3839-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3839-2020
Model evaluation paper
 | 
31 Aug 2020
Model evaluation paper |  | 31 Aug 2020

Characterizing model errors in chemical transport modeling of methane: impact of model resolution in versions v9-02 of GEOS-Chem and v35j of its adjoint model

Ilya Stanevich, Dylan B. A. Jones, Kimberly Strong, Robert J. Parker, Hartmut Boesch, Debra Wunch, Justus Notholt, Christof Petri, Thorsten Warneke, Ralf Sussmann, Matthias Schneider, Frank Hase, Rigel Kivi, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Voltaire A. Velazco, Kaley A. Walker, and Feng Deng

Related authors

Characterizing model errors in chemical transport modeling of methane: using GOSAT XCH4 data with weak-constraint four-dimensional variational data assimilation
Ilya Stanevich, Dylan B. A. Jones, Kimberly Strong, Martin Keller, Daven K. Henze, Robert J. Parker, Hartmut Boesch, Debra Wunch, Justus Notholt, Christof Petri, Thorsten Warneke, Ralf Sussmann, Matthias Schneider, Frank Hase, Rigel Kivi, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Voltaire A. Velazco, Kaley A. Walker, and Feng Deng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9545–9572, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9545-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9545-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
New submodel for emissions from Explosive Volcanic ERuptions (EVER v1.1) within the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy, version 2.55.1)
Matthias Kohl, Christoph Brühl, Jennifer Schallock, Holger Tost, Patrick Jöckel, Adrian Jost, Steffen Beirle, Michael Höpfner, and Andrea Pozzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying the oscillatory evolution of simulated boundary-layer cloud fields using Gaussian process regression
Gunho Loren Oh and Philip H. Austin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3921–3940, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3921-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3921-2025, 2025
Short summary
Numerical investigations on the modelling of ultrafine particles in SSH-aerosol-v1.3a: size resolution and redistribution
Oscar Jacquot and Karine Sartelet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3965–3984, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3965-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3965-2025, 2025
Short summary
The third Met Office Unified Model–JULES Regional Atmosphere and Land Configuration, RAL3
Mike Bush, David L. A. Flack, Huw W. Lewis, Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel, Chris J. Short, Charmaine Franklin, Adrian P. Lock, Martin Best, Paul Field, Anne McCabe, Kwinten Van Weverberg, Segolene Berthou, Ian Boutle, Jennifer K. Brooke, Seb Cole, Shaun Cooper, Gareth Dow, John Edwards, Anke Finnenkoetter, Kalli Furtado, Kate Halladay, Kirsty Hanley, Margaret A. Hendry, Adrian Hill, Aravindakshan Jayakumar, Richard W. Jones, Humphrey Lean, Joshua C. K. Lee, Andy Malcolm, Marion Mittermaier, Saji Mohandas, Stuart Moore, Cyril Morcrette, Rachel North, Aurore Porson, Susan Rennie, Nigel Roberts, Belinda Roux, Claudio Sanchez, Chun-Hsu Su, Simon Tucker, Simon Vosper, David Walters, James Warner, Stuart Webster, Mark Weeks, Jonathan Wilkinson, Michael Whitall, Keith D. Williams, and Hugh Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3819–3855, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, 2025
Short summary
The sensitivity of aerosol data assimilation to vertical profiles: case study of dust storm assimilation with LOTOS-EUROS v2.2
Mijie Pang, Jianbing Jin, Ting Yang, Xi Chen, Arjo Segers, Batjargal Buyantogtokh, Yixuan Gu, Jiandong Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Hong Liao, and Wei Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3781–3798, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Alexe, M., Bergamaschi, P., Segers, A., Detmers, R., Butz, A., Hasekamp, O., Guerlet, S., Parker, R., Boesch, H., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Sweeney, C., Wofsy, S. C., and Kort, E. A.: Inverse modelling of CH4 emissions for 2010–2011 using different satellite retrieval products from GOSAT and SCIAMACHY, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 113–133, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-113-2015, 2015. a, b
Arellano, A. F. and Hess, P. G.: Sensitivity of top-down estimates of CO sources to GCTM transport, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027371, l21807, 2006. a
Baker, D. F., Law, R. M., Gurney, K. R., Rayner, P., Peylin, P., Denning, A. S., Bousquet, P., Bruhwiler, L., Chen, Y.-H., Ciais, P., Fung, I. Y., Heimann, M., John, J., Maki, T., Maksyutov, S., Masarie, K., Prather, M., Pak, B., Taguchi, S., and Zhu, Z.: TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 20, gB1002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002439, 2006. a
Bergamaschi, P., Frankenberg, C., Meirink, J. F., Krol, M., Villani, M. G., Houweling, S., Dentener, F., Dlugokencky, E. J., Miller, J. B., Gatti, L. V., Engel, A., and Levin, I.: Inverse modeling of global and regional CH4 emissions using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D22301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012287, 2009. a
Bergamaschi, P., Houweling, S., Segers, A., Krol, M., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Wofsy, S. C., Kort, E. A., Sweeney, C., Schuck, T., Brenninkmeijer, C., Chen, H., Beck, V., and Gerbig, C.: Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st century: Inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and NOAA surface measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7350–7369, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50480, 2013. a
Download
Short summary
Systematic errors in atmospheric models pose a challenge for inverse modeling studies of methane (CH4) emissions. We evaluated the CH4 simulation in the GEOS-Chem model at the horizontal resolutions of 4° × 5° and 2° × 2.5°. Our analysis identified resolution-dependent biases in the model, which we attributed to discrepancies between the two model resolutions in vertical transport in the troposphere and in stratosphere–troposphere exchange.
Share