Abstract

Abstract. We develop a new protocol for merging in situ measurements with 3-D model simulations of atmospheric chemistry with the goal of integrating these data to identify the most reactive air parcels in terms of tropospheric production and loss of the greenhouse gases ozone and methane. Presupposing that we can accurately measure atmospheric composition, we examine whether models constrained by such measurements agree on the chemical budgets for ozone and methane. In applying our technique to a synthetic data stream of 14 880 parcels along 180∘ W, we are able to isolate the performance of the photochemical modules operating within their global chemistry-climate and chemistry-transport models, removing the effects of modules controlling tracer transport, emissions, and scavenging. Differences in reactivity across models are driven only by the chemical mechanism and the diurnal cycle of photolysis rates, which are driven in turn by temperature, water vapor, solar zenith angle, clouds, and possibly aerosols and overhead ozone, which are calculated in each model. We evaluate six global models and identify their differences and similarities in simulating the chemistry through a range of innovative diagnostics. All models agree that the more highly reactive parcels dominate the chemistry (e.g., the hottest 10 % of parcels control 25–30 % of the total reactivities), but do not fully agree on which parcels comprise the top 10 %. Distinct differences in specific features occur, including the spatial regions of maximum ozone production and methane loss, as well as in the relationship between photolysis and these reactivities. Unique, possibly aberrant, features are identified for each model, providing a benchmark for photochemical module development. Among the six models tested here, three are almost indistinguishable based on the inherent variability caused by clouds, and thus we identify four, effectively distinct, chemical models. Based on this work, we suggest that water vapor differences in model simulations of past and future atmospheres may be a cause of the different evolution of tropospheric O3 and CH4, and lead to different chemistry-climate feedbacks across the models.

Highlights

  • The daily passage of sunlight through the lower atmosphere drives photochemical reactions that control many short-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants

  • The results here are similar to what has been identified earlier: Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has unusual offsets for all reactivities and J -O1D; agreement for P -O3 is much better than for L-O3 and L-CH4; four models show the upward curve matching the top-1 % parcels; for L-O3 and L-CH4, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) have a flat scatter of points and miss the upward curve because they reset the q of the data stream

  • We develop a new protocol for merging in situ measurements with 3-D model simulations of atmospheric chemistry as calculated by chemistry-transport models through to Earth system models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The daily passage of sunlight through the lower atmosphere drives photochemical reactions that control many short-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants. We are able to use the standard full 3D model as a collection of box models (i.e., one per grid cell), while incorporating its diurnal cycle of photolysis and cloud fields Such simulations, named the A-runs, are artificial since real air parcels constantly move and mix with their environment. For the single data stream, each model calculates reactivities using the same chemical initialization but beginning with 5 different days in August: 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 This 5-day variance gives us a measure of the uncertainty due to cloud variability, is similar across models, and provides a lower limit on the detection of model–model differences, i.e., a measure of “as good as it gets” in this comparison. Such biases are not meant to be model errors since we do not know the correct answer; they are just model–model differences

Average profiles
The “hot” air parcels
Assumptions and uncertainties in the experiment design
Findings
Summary discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call