首页> 外文期刊>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions >Why do models perform differently on particulate matter over East Asia? A multi-model intercomparison study for MICS-Asia III
【24h】

Why do models perform differently on particulate matter over East Asia? A multi-model intercomparison study for MICS-Asia III

机译:为什么模特在东亚的颗粒物质上表现不同? MICS-Asia III的多模型互相研究

获取原文
           

摘要

This study compares the performance of 12 regional chemical transport models (CTMs) from the third phase of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia (MICS-Asia III) on simulating the particulate matter (PM) over East Asia (EA) in 2010. The participating models include the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Community Multiscale Air Quality (WRF-CMAQ; v4.7.1 and v5.0.2), the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System coupled with CMAQ (RAMS-CMAQ; v4.7.1 and v5.0.2), the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with chemistry (WRF-Chem; v3.6.1 and v3.7.1), Goddard Earth Observing System coupled with chemistry (GEOS-Chem), a non-hydrostatic model coupled with chemistry (NHM-Chem), the Nested Air Quality Prediction Modeling System (NAQPMS) and the NASA-Unified WRF (NU-WRF). This study investigates three model processes as the possible reasons for different model performances on PM. (1)?Models perform very differently in the gas–particle conversion of sulfur (S) and oxidized nitrogen (N). The model differences in sulfur oxidation ratio (50%) are of the same magnitude as that in SO42- concentrations. The gas–particle conversion is one of the main reasons for different model performances on fine mode PM. (2)?Models without dust emission modules can perform well on PM10 at non-dust-affected sites but largely underestimate (up to 50%) the PM10 concentrations at dust sites. The implementation of dust emission modules in the models has largely improved the model accuracies at dust sites (reduce model bias to ?20%). However, both the magnitude and distribution of dust pollution are not fully captured. (3) The amounts of modeled depositions vary among models by 75%, 39%, 21% and 38% for S wet, S dry, N wet and N dry depositions, respectively. Large inter-model differences are found in the washout ratios of wet deposition (at most 170% in India) and dry deposition velocities (generally 0.3–2cms?1 differences over inland regions).
机译:本研究比较了12个区域化学传输模型(CTMS)的性能来自亚洲(MICS-Asia III)模型相互比较研究的第三阶段,在2010年模拟了东亚(EA)的颗粒物质(ea)。参与模型包括与社区多尺度空气质量(WRF-CMAQ; V4.7.1和V5.0.2)相结合的天气研究和预测模型,区域大气建模系统与CMAQ(RAMS-CMAQ; V4.7.1和V5.0.2)相结合),与化学(WRF-Chem; V3.6.1和V3.7.1),戈达德地球观测系统加上化学(Geos-Chem),加上化学(NHM-Chem)的非静水压模型(NHM-Chem ),嵌套空气质量预测建模系统(NAQPMS)和NASA统一WRF(NU-WRF)。本研究调查了三种模型过程作为PM上不同模型性能的可能原因。 (1)?模型在硫(S)和氧化氮(N)的气体颗粒转化中非常不同。硫氧化比(50%)的模型差异与SO42浓度相同。气体粒子转换是在微型模式下不同模型性能的主要原因之一。 (2)?没有灰尘发射模块的型号可以在非粉尘受影响的场地上的PM10表现良好,但大部分低估(高达50%)PM10浓度在灰尘部位。模型中的灰尘发射模块的实施在很大程度上提高了灰尘部位的模型精度(将模型偏差降低到20%)。但是,粉尘污染的幅度和分布都没有完全捕获。 (3)模型沉积的量分别在模型中变化75%,39%,21%和38%,分别进行湿,S干燥,N湿和N干沉积。在湿沉积的冲洗比率(印度最多为170%)和干沉积速度(通常为0.3-2cms差异,在内陆地区的差异为0.3-2cms)中,发现了大型模型差异。
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号