Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6721-6744, 2015
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/6721/2015/
doi:10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
17 Jun 2015
The POLARCAT Model Intercomparison Project (POLMIP): overview and evaluation with observations
L. K. Emmons1, S. R. Arnold2, S. A. Monks2, V. Huijnen3, S. Tilmes1, K. S. Law4, J. L. Thomas4, J.-C. Raut4, I. Bouarar4,*, S. Turquety5, Y. Long5, B. Duncan6, S. Steenrod6, S. Strode6,21, J. Flemming7, J. Mao8, J. Langner9, A. M. Thompson6, D. Tarasick10, E. C. Apel1, D. R. Blake11, R. C. Cohen12, J. Dibb13, G. S. Diskin14, A. Fried15, S. R. Hall1, L. G. Huey16, A. J. Weinheimer1, A. Wisthaler17,18, T. Mikoviny17,18, J. Nowak19,**, J. Peischl19, J. M. Roberts19, T. Ryerson19, C. Warneke19, and D. Helmig20 1Atmospheric Chemistry Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
2Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
3Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
4Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ. Paris 06, Université Versailles St-Quentin, CNRS/INSU, LATMOS-IPSL, UMR8190, Paris, France
5Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL, CNRS, UMR8539, 91128 Palaiseau CEDEX, France
6NASA Goddard, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, Code 614, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
7ECMWF, Reading, UK
8NOAA GFDL and Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
9Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 60176 Nörrkping, Sweden
10Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario, Canada
11Department of Chemistry, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
12Chemistry Department, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
13University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
14NASA Langley Research Center, Chemistry and Dynamics Branch, Hampton, VA, USA
15University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
16Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
17University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
18University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
19NOAA Earth System Research Lab, Boulder, CO, USA
20INSTAAR, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
21Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, USA
*now at: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Hamburg, Germany
**now at: Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA
Abstract. A model intercomparison activity was inspired by the large suite of observations of atmospheric composition made during the International Polar Year (2008) in the Arctic. Nine global and two regional chemical transport models participated in this intercomparison and performed simulations for 2008 using a common emissions inventory to assess the differences in model chemistry and transport schemes. This paper summarizes the models and compares their simulations of ozone and its precursors and presents an evaluation of the simulations using a variety of surface, balloon, aircraft and satellite observations. Each type of measurement has some limitations in spatial or temporal coverage or in composition, but together they assist in quantifying the limitations of the models in the Arctic and surrounding regions. Despite using the same emissions, large differences are seen among the models. The cloud fields and photolysis rates are shown to vary greatly among the models, indicating one source of the differences in the simulated chemical species. The largest differences among models, and between models and observations, are in NOy partitioning (PAN vs. HNO3) and in oxygenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as acetaldehyde and acetone. Comparisons to surface site measurements of ethane and propane indicate that the emissions of these species are significantly underestimated. Satellite observations of NO2 from the OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument) have been used to evaluate the models over source regions, indicating anthropogenic emissions are underestimated in East Asia, but fire emissions are generally overestimated. The emission factors for wildfires in Canada are evaluated using the correlations of VOCs to CO in the model output in comparison to enhancement factors derived from aircraft observations, showing reasonable agreement for methanol and acetaldehyde but underestimate ethanol, propane and acetone, while overestimating ethane emission factors.

Citation: Emmons, L. K., Arnold, S. R., Monks, S. A., Huijnen, V., Tilmes, S., Law, K. S., Thomas, J. L., Raut, J.-C., Bouarar, I., Turquety, S., Long, Y., Duncan, B., Steenrod, S., Strode, S., Flemming, J., Mao, J., Langner, J., Thompson, A. M., Tarasick, D., Apel, E. C., Blake, D. R., Cohen, R. C., Dibb, J., Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Hall, S. R., Huey, L. G., Weinheimer, A. J., Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Nowak, J., Peischl, J., Roberts, J. M., Ryerson, T., Warneke, C., and Helmig, D.: The POLARCAT Model Intercomparison Project (POLMIP): overview and evaluation with observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6721-6744, doi:10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015, 2015.
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
Eleven 3-D tropospheric chemistry models have been compared and evaluated with observations in the Arctic during the International Polar Year (IPY 2008). Large differences are seen among the models, particularly related to the model chemistry of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and reactive nitrogen (NOx, PAN, HNO3) partitioning. Consistency among the models in the underestimation of CO, ethane and propane indicates the emission inventory is too low for these compounds.
Eleven 3-D tropospheric chemistry models have been compared and evaluated with observations in...
Share