Improved simulation of tropospheric ozone by a global-multi-regional two-way coupling model system

Abstract. Small-scale nonlinear chemical and physical processes over pollution source regions affect the tropospheric ozone (O3), but these processes are not captured by current global chemical transport models (CTMs) and chemistry–climate models that are limited by coarse horizontal resolutions (100–500 km, typically 200 km). These models tend to contain large (and mostly positive) tropospheric O3 biases in the Northern Hemisphere. Here we use the recently built two-way coupling system of the GEOS-Chem CTM to simulate the regional and global tropospheric O3 in 2009. The system couples the global model (at 2.5° long.  ×  2° lat.) and its three nested models (at 0.667° long.  ×  0.5° lat.) covering Asia, North America and Europe, respectively. Specifically, the nested models take lateral boundary conditions (LBCs) from the global model, better capture small-scale processes and feed back to modify the global model simulation within the nested domains, with a subsequent effect on their LBCs. Compared to the global model alone, the two-way coupled system better simulates the tropospheric O3 both within and outside the nested domains, as found by evaluation against a suite of ground (1420 sites from the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG), the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division (GMD), the Chemical Coordination Centre of European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System (AQS)), aircraft (the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER) Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) and Measurement of Ozone and Water Vapor by Airbus In- Service Aircraft (MOZAIC)) and satellite measurements (two Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) products). The two-way coupled simulation enhances the correlation in day-to-day variation of afternoon mean surface O3 with the ground measurements from 0.53 to 0.68, and it reduces the mean model bias from 10.8 to 6.7 ppb. Regionally, the coupled system reduces the bias by 4.6 ppb over Europe, 3.9 ppb over North America and 3.1 ppb over other regions. The two-way coupling brings O3 vertical profiles much closer to the HIPPO (for remote areas) and MOZAIC (for polluted regions) data, reducing the tropospheric (0–9 km) mean bias by 3–10 ppb at most MOZAIC sites and by 5.3 ppb for HIPPO profiles. The two-way coupled simulation also reduces the global tropospheric column ozone by 3.0 DU (9.5 %, annual mean), bringing them closer to the OMI data in all seasons. Additionally, the two-way coupled simulation also reduces the global tropospheric mean hydroxyl radical by 5 % with improved estimates of methyl chloroform and methane lifetimes. Simulation improvements are more significant in the Northern Hemisphere, and are mainly driven by improved representation of spatial inhomogeneity in chemistry/emissions. Within the nested domains, the two-way coupled simulation reduces surface ozone biases relative to typical GEOS-Chem one-way nested simulations, due to much improved LBCs. The bias reduction is 1–7 times the bias reduction from the global to the one-way nested simulation. Improving model representations of small-scale processes is important for understanding the global and regional tropospheric chemistry.

[1]  M. Proffitt,et al.  Fast‐response dual‐beam UV‐absorption ozone photometer suitable for use on stratospheric balloons , 1983 .

[2]  Sanford Sillman,et al.  The sensitivity of ozone to nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons in regional ozone episodes , 1990 .

[3]  D. Rind,et al.  A simple lightning parameterization for calculating global lightning distributions , 1992 .

[4]  Albert A. M. Holtslag,et al.  Local Versus Nonlocal Boundary-Layer Diffusion in a Global Climate Model , 1993 .

[5]  A. Bouwman,et al.  A global high‐resolution emission inventory for ammonia , 1997 .

[6]  John A. Pyle,et al.  Measurement of ozone and water vapor by Airbus in-service aircraft: The MOZAIC airborne program, an overview , 1998 .

[7]  Valerie Thouret,et al.  Comparisons of ozone measurements from the MOZAIC airborne program and the ozone sounding network at eight locations , 1998 .

[8]  B. Hannegan,et al.  Stratospheric ozone in 3-D models : A simple chemistry and the cross-tropopause flux , 2000 .

[9]  D. Hauglustaine,et al.  Intercomparison of tropospheric ozone models: Ozone transport in a complex tropopause folding event , 2003 .

[10]  R. Martin,et al.  Application of empirical orthogonal functions to evaluate ozone simulations with regional and global models , 2003 .

[11]  Michael Q. Wang,et al.  An inventory of gaseous and primary aerosol emissions in Asia in the year 2000 , 2003 .

[12]  Hampden D. Kuhns,et al.  Vehicle-based road dust emission measurement—Part II: Effect of precipitation, wintertime road sanding, and street sweepers on inferred PM10 emission potentials from paved and unpaved roads , 2003 .

[13]  D. Jacob,et al.  Impact of new laboratory studies of N2O5 hydrolysis on global model budgets of tropospheric nitrogen oxides, ozone, and OH , 2005, Geophysical Research Letters.

[14]  Derek M. Cunnold,et al.  Evidence for variability of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals over the past quarter century , 2005 .

[15]  I. Bey,et al.  Long‐range transport to Europe: Seasonal variations and implications for the European ozone budget , 2005 .

[16]  V. Malathy Devi,et al.  Multispectrum analysis of 12CH4 from 4100 to 4635 cm−1: 1. Self-broadening coefficients (widths and shifts) , 2005 .

[17]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Multimodel ensemble simulations of present-day and near-future tropospheric ozone , 2006 .

[18]  D Hauglustaine,et al.  The global atmospheric environment for the next generation. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Xiong Liu,et al.  Improved ozone profile retrievals from GOME data with degradation correction in reflectance , 2006 .

[20]  Oliver Wild,et al.  Global tropospheric ozone modeling: Quantifying errors due to grid resolution , 2006 .

[21]  D. Jacob,et al.  Why are there large differences between models in global budgets of tropospheric ozone , 2007 .

[22]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  Historical emissions of black and organic carbon aerosol from energy‐related combustion, 1850–2000 , 2007 .

[23]  D. Wuebbles,et al.  Impacts of long‐range transport of global pollutants and precursor gases on U.S. air quality under future climatic conditions , 2008 .

[24]  D. Wuebbles,et al.  Global model simulation of summertime U.S. ozone diurnal cycle and its sensitivity to PBL mixing, spatial resolution, and emissions , 2008 .

[25]  R. Marin,et al.  Mapping phytoplankton in situ using a laser‐scattering sensor , 2008 .

[26]  Ricardo Todling,et al.  The GEOS-5 Data Assimilation System-Documentation of Versions 5.0.1, 5.1.0, and 5.2.0 , 2008 .

[27]  William J. Collins,et al.  Multimodel estimates of intercontinental source-receptor relationships for ozone pollution , 2008 .

[28]  Daniel J. Jacob,et al.  Global Budget of Ethane and Regional Constraints on U.S. Sources , 2008 .

[29]  Christine Wiedinmyer,et al.  A Preliminary Synthesis of Modeled Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Regional Ozone Concentrations , 2009 .

[30]  Georgiy L. Stenchikov,et al.  Production of Lightning NO(x) and its Vertical Distribution Calculated from 3-D Cloud-scale Chemical Transport Model Simulations , 2009 .

[31]  A. Ravishankara,et al.  Reactive uptake coefficients for N2O5 determined from aircraft measurements during the Second Texas Air Quality Study: Comparison to current model parameterizations , 2009 .

[32]  M. McElroy,et al.  Regional CO pollution and export in China simulated by the high-resolution nested-grid GEOS-Chem model , 2009 .

[33]  M. Gauss,et al.  The influence of foreign vs. North American emissions on surface ozone in the US , 2009 .

[34]  T. Oki,et al.  Multi-scale model analysis of boundary layer ozone over East Asia , 2009 .

[35]  J. Thornton,et al.  Direct observations of N2O5 reactivity on ambient aerosol particles , 2009 .

[36]  G. Carmichael,et al.  Asian emissions in 2006 for the NASA INTEX-B mission , 2009 .

[37]  Xiong Liu,et al.  Ozone profile retrievals from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument , 2009 .

[38]  K. Emmerson,et al.  Comparison of tropospheric gas-phase chemistry schemes for use within global models , 2009 .

[39]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997-2009) , 2010 .

[40]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Impact of Mexico City emissions on regional air quality from MOZART-4 simulations , 2010 .

[41]  G. Carmichael,et al.  Impacts of transported background ozone on California air quality during the ARCTAS-CARB period – a multi-scale modeling study , 2010 .

[42]  M. McElroy,et al.  Impacts of boundary layer mixing on pollutant vertical profiles in the lower troposphere: Implications to satellite remote sensing , 2010 .

[43]  M. Luo,et al.  Seasonal and spatial variability of surface ozone over China: contributions from background and domestic pollution , 2010 .

[44]  J. Warner,et al.  Midlatitude stratosphere - troposphere exchange as diagnosed by MLS O 3 and MOPITT CO assimilated fields , 2010 .

[45]  G. Stenchikov,et al.  Production of lightning NOx and its vertical distribution calculated from three‐dimensional cloud‐scale chemical transport model simulations , 2010 .

[46]  Tracey Holloway,et al.  Quantifying pollution inflow and outflow over East Asia in spring with regional and global models , 2010 .

[47]  Andrew K. Mollner,et al.  Rate of Gas Phase Association of Hydroxyl Radical and Nitrogen Dioxide , 2010, Science.

[48]  Pawan K. Bhartia,et al.  A global climatology of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone derived from Aura OMI and MLS measurements , 2011 .

[49]  G. Janssens-Maenhout,et al.  Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements , 2011 .

[50]  S. Wofsy,et al.  HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO): fine-grained, global-scale measurements of climatically important atmospheric gases and aerosols , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[51]  R. C. Hudman,et al.  Effects of model resolution on the interpretation of satellite NO 2 observations , 2011 .

[52]  Dylan B. A. Jones,et al.  Improved estimate of the policy-relevant background ozone in the United States using the GEOS-Chem global model with 1/2° × 2/3° horizontal resolution over North America , 2011 .

[53]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP) , 2012 .

[54]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Pre-industrial to end 21st century projections of tropospheric ozone from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP) , 2012 .

[55]  H. Akimoto,et al.  Measurement of overall uptake coefficients for HO 2 radicals by aerosol particles sampled from ambient air at Mts. Tai and Mang (China) , 2012 .

[56]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Modeling uncertainties for tropospheric nitrogen dioxide columns affecting satellite-based inverse modeling of nitrogen oxides emissions , 2012 .

[57]  Greg Yarwood,et al.  Regional and global modeling estimates of policy relevant background ozone over the United States , 2012 .

[58]  R. C. Hudman,et al.  Steps towards a mechanistic model of global soil nitric oxide emissions: implementation and space based-constraints , 2012 .

[59]  Eric A. Kort,et al.  Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north , 2012 .

[60]  William J. Koshak,et al.  Optimized regional and interannual variability of lightning in a global chemical transport model constrained by LIS/OTD satellite data , 2012 .

[61]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Transport of Asian ozone pollution into surface air over the western United States in spring , 2012 .

[62]  Michael J. Prather,et al.  Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry , 2012 .

[63]  Xin Huang,et al.  A high‐resolution ammonia emission inventory in China , 2012 .

[64]  L. Emmons,et al.  The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions , 2012 .

[65]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Springtime high surface ozone events over the western United States: Quantifying the role of stratospheric intrusions , 2012 .

[66]  D. Jacob,et al.  Sources contributing to background surface ozone in the US Intermountain West , 2013 .

[67]  Ronald C. Cohen,et al.  Chemical feedback effects on the spatial patterns of the NO x weekend effect: a sensitivity analysis , 2013 .

[68]  K. F. Boersma,et al.  Constraints on ship NO x emissions in Europe using GEOS-Chem and OMI satellite NO 2 observations , 2013 .

[69]  P. Hess,et al.  Impacts of climate change on surface ozone and intercontinental ozone pollution: A multi‐model study , 2013 .

[70]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Ozone and organic nitrates over the eastern United States: Sensitivity to isoprene chemistry , 2013 .

[71]  Marc E.J. Stettler,et al.  Rapid estimation of global civil aviation emissions with uncertainty quantification , 2013 .

[72]  Philippe Thunis,et al.  High-resolution air quality simulation over Europe with the chemistry transport model CHIMERE , 2013 .

[73]  F. Carminati,et al.  Climatology of pure tropospheric profiles and column contents of ozone and carbon monoxide using MOZAIC in the mid-northern latitudes (24° N to 50° N) from 1994 to 2009 , 2013 .

[74]  D. Jacob,et al.  Global ozone–CO correlations from OMI and AIRS: constraints on tropospheric ozone sources , 2013 .

[75]  D. Weisenstein,et al.  Development and evaluation of the unified tropospheric–stratospheric chemistry extension (UCX) for the global chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem , 2014 .

[76]  G. Mills,et al.  Tropospheric ozone and its precursors from the urban to the global scale from air quality to short-lived climate forcer , 2014 .

[77]  S. Davis,et al.  China’s international trade and air pollution in the United States , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[78]  Wesley F. Reinhart,et al.  Emissions of C6–C8 aromatic compounds in the United States: Constraints from tall tower and aircraft measurements , 2015 .

[79]  Yingying Yan,et al.  Tropospheric carbon monoxide over the Pacific during HIPPO: Two-way coupled simulation of GEOS-Chem and its multiple nested models , 2014 .

[80]  Joseph P. Pinto,et al.  Estimating North American background ozone in U.S. surface air with two independent global models: Variability, uncertainties, and recommendations , 2014 .

[81]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Long‐term changes in lower tropospheric baseline ozone concentrations: Comparing chemistry‐climate models and observations at northern midlatitudes , 2014 .

[82]  R. Yantosca,et al.  Positive but variable sensitivity of August surface ozone to large-scale warming in the southeast United States , 2015 .

[83]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Climate variability modulates western US ozone air quality in spring via deep stratospheric intrusions , 2015, Nature Communications.

[84]  J. Fung,et al.  Development of a custom OMI NO 2 data product for evaluating biases in a regional chemistry transport model , 2015 .