Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7021-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7021-2021
Model evaluation paper
 | 
18 Nov 2021
Model evaluation paper |  | 18 Nov 2021

Evaluation of global EMEP MSC-W (rv4.34) WRF (v3.9.1.1) model surface concentrations and wet deposition of reactive N and S with measurements

Yao Ge, Mathew R. Heal, David S. Stevenson, Peter Wind, and Massimo Vieno

Related authors

Evaluation of modelled versus observed non-methane volatile organic compounds at European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme sites in Europe
Yao Ge, Sverre Solberg, Mathew R. Heal, Stefan Reimann, Willem van Caspel, Bryan Hellack, Thérèse Salameh, and David Simpson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7699–7729, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7699-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7699-2024, 2024
Short summary
Implementation and evaluation of updated photolysis rates in the EMEP MSC-W chemistry-transport model using Cloud-J v7.3e
Willem E. van Caspel, David Simpson, Jan Eiof Jonson, Anna M. K. Benedictow, Yao Ge, Alcide di Sarra, Giandomenico Pace, Massimo Vieno, Hannah L. Walker, and Mathew R. Heal
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7433–7459, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7433-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Global sensitivities of reactive N and S gas and particle concentrations and deposition to precursor emissions reductions
Yao Ge, Massimo Vieno, David S. Stevenson, Peter Wind, and Mathew R. Heal
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6083–6112, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6083-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6083-2023, 2023
Short summary
A new assessment of global and regional budgets, fluxes, and lifetimes of atmospheric reactive N and S gases and aerosols
Yao Ge, Massimo Vieno, David S. Stevenson, Peter Wind, and Mathew R. Heal
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8343–8368, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8343-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8343-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
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
SynRad v1.0: a radar forward operator to simulate synthetic weather radar observations from volcanic ash clouds
Vishnu Nair, Anujah Mohanathan, Michael Herzog, David G. Macfarlane, and Duncan A. Robertson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4417–4432, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Adams, P. J., Seinfeld, J. H., and Koch, D. M.: Global concentrations of tropospheric sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium aerosol simulated in a general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 13791–13823, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900083, 1999. 
Aleksankina, K., Reis, S., Vieno, M., and Heal, M. R.: Advanced methods for uncertainty assessment and global sensitivity analysis of an Eulerian atmospheric chemistry transport model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 2881–2898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-2881-2019, 2019. 
Bellouin, N., Rae, J., Jones, A., Johnson, C., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D20206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016074, 2011. 
Bergström, R., Hallquist, M., Simpson, D., Wildt, J., and Mentel, T. F.: Biotic stress: a significant contributor to organic aerosol in Europe?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13643–13660, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13643-2014, 2014. 
Bergström, R., Jenkin, M., Hayman, G., and Simpson, D.: Update and comparison of atmospheric chemistry mechanisms for the EMEP MSC-W model system – EmChem19a, EmChem19X, CRIv2R5Em, CB6r2Em, and MCMv3.3Em, in preparation, 2021. 
Download
Short summary
This study reports the first evaluation of the global EMEP MSC-W ACTM driven by WRF meteorology, with a focus on surface concentrations and wet deposition of reactive N and S species. The model–measurement comparison is conducted both spatially and temporally, covering 10 monitoring networks worldwide. The statistics from the comprehensive evaluations presented in this study support the application of this model framework for global analysis of the budgets and fluxes of reactive N and SIA.
Share