Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.668 IF 5.668
  • IF 5-year value: 6.201 IF 5-year
    6.201
  • CiteScore value: 6.13 CiteScore
    6.13
  • SNIP value: 1.633 SNIP 1.633
  • IPP value: 5.91 IPP 5.91
  • SJR value: 2.938 SJR 2.938
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 174 Scimago H
    index 174
  • h5-index value: 87 h5-index 87
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-1283
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-1283
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: research article 17 Jan 2019

Submitted as: research article | 17 Jan 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. A revision of this manuscript was accepted for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) and is expected to appear here in due course.

Model evaluation and inter-comparison of surface-level ozone and relevant species in East Asia in the context of MICS-Asia phase III Part I: overview

Jie Li1,2,3, Tatsuya Nagashima4, Lei Kong1,2, Baozhu Ge1,2,3, Kazuyo Yamaji5, Joshua S. Fu6, Xuemei Wang7, Qi Fan8, Syuichi Itahashi9, Hyo-Jung Lee10, Cheol-Hee Kim10, Chuan-Yao Lin11, Meigen Zhang1,2,3, Zhining Tao12, Mizuo Kajino13,14, Hong Liao15, Meng Li16, Jung-Hun Woo10, Jun-ichi Kurokawa17, Qizhong Wu18, Hajime Akimoto4, Gregory R. Carmichael19, and Zifa Wang1,2,3 Jie Li et al.
  • 1LAPC, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
  • 2College of Earth Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
  • 3Center for Excellence in Urban Atmospheric Environment, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, 361021, China
  • 4National Institute for Environmental Studies, Onogawa, Tsukuba, 305-8506, Japan
  • 5Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan
  • 6Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA
  • 7Institute for Environment and Climate Research, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China
  • 8School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China
  • 9Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, 100-8126, Japan
  • 10Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Pusan National University, Pusan, 46241, South Korea
  • 11Research Center for Environmental Changes/Academia Sinica, 11529, Taipei
  • 12Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, 21046, USA
  • 13Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba, 305-8506, Japan
  • 14Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, 305-8506, Japan
  • 15Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment Monitoring and Pollution Control, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Atmospheric Environment and Equipment Technology, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China
  • 16Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
  • 17Japan Environmental Sanitation Center, Asia Center for Air Pollution Research, N iigata, 950-2144, Japan
  • 18Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China
  • 19Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

Abstract. Long-term ozone (O3) and nitric oxide (NOx) from fourteen state-of-the-art chemical transport models are evaluated and intercompared to ozone observations in East Asia, within the framework of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for ASIA phase III (MICS-ASIA III), designed to evaluate the capabilities and uncertainties of current chemical transport models (CTMs) simulations in Asia and provide multi-model estimates of pollution distributions. These models were run by fourteen independent groups in China, Japan, Korea, United States of America and other countries/regions. Compared with MICS-ASIAII, the evaluation against observations were extended to be one-full year in China and the western Pacific Rim from four months and the western Pacific Rim. Potential causes of the discrepancies between model results and observation have also been investigated by assessing the PBL heights, emission fluxes, dry deposition, O3-NOx relationships and vertical profiles among models in this study. In general, the model skills for O3 varied largely with region and seasons. Most models captured the key pattern of monthly and diurnal surface O3 and its precursors in North China Plain, Yangtze River Delta and western Pacific rim, but failed in Peral River Delta of China. A significant overestimation of surface ozone was found in May–September/October and January–May over North China Plain, western Pacific rim and Peral River Delta of China, respectively. A large intermodel variability of O3 existed in all subregions over East Asia in this study, which was caused by the internal parameterizations of chemistry, dry deposition and vertical mixing of models, even though the native schemes in models are similar. Ensemble average of 13 models on O3 did not always exhibit a superior performance compared to certain individual model, in contrast to its superiority in Europe. This suggested that the spread of ensemble-model values hadn't represented all uncertainties of ozone or most models in MICS-ASIAIII missed key processes. Compared with the previous phase of MICS-ASIA(MICS-ASIAII, this study improved the performance of ozone in March at Japan sites. But it predicted too enhanced surface O3 concentrations at western Japan in July, which has not been found in MICS-ASIAII. Major challenges still remain with regards to recognizing the sources of bias in surface O3 over East Asia in CTMs.

Jie Li et al.
Jie Li et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 551 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
409 135 7 551 35 4 9
  • HTML: 409
  • PDF: 135
  • XML: 7
  • Total: 551
  • Supplement: 35
  • BibTeX: 4
  • EndNote: 9
Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jan 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jan 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 462 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 460 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 14 Oct 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
This manuscript evaluated and intercompared 14 CTMs to ozone observations in East Asia, within the framework of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for ASIA phase III (MICS-ASIA III). Potential causes of the discrepancies between model results and observation have also been investigated by assessing the PBL heights, emission fluxes, dry deposition, chemistry and vertical transport among models. Finally, a multi-model estimate of pollution distributions was provided.
This manuscript evaluated and intercompared 14 CTMs to ozone observations in East Asia, within...
Citation