Model evaluation and intercomparison of surface-level ozone and relevant species in East Asia in the context of MICS-Asia Phase III - Part 1: Overview
Model evaluation and intercomparison of surface-level ozone and relevant species in East Asia in the context of MICS-Asia Phase III - Part 1: Overview
复制标题
DOI：
10.5194/acp-19-12993-2019
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-21
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Wang, Zifa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li, Jie;Nagashima, Tatsuya;Wang, Zifa
在亚洲第三阶段模型相互比较研究 (MICS-Asia III) 的框架内，将 14 个最先进的化学输运模型 (CTM) 的臭氧 (O-3) 和氮氧化物 (NOx) 混合比的时空变化与东亚的 O-3 观测进行相互比较和评估。本研究旨在评估亚洲当前 CTM 模拟的能力和不确定性，并提供污染物分布的多模型估计。这些模型由分布在中国、日本、韩国、美国等国家/地区的 14 个独立团队运营。与上一阶段MICS-Asia（MICS-Asia II）相比，中国及西太平洋地区的观测评估时间从4个月延长至1年。一般来说，O-3 的模型性能水平因地区和季节而异。大多数模型捕捉到了华北平原和环西太平洋地区地表O-3及其前体的月和日变化的关键模式，但未能捕捉到珠江三角洲的情况。 5 月至 9 月/10 月以及 1 月至 5 月，华北平原、环西太平洋地区和珠江三角洲地表 O-3 明显高估。观测结果的比较表明，O-3 光化学产生的巨大多样性在一定程度上导致了这种高估以及华北地区 O-3 模式间的高水平变异。在O-3探测方面，模式的集合平均值再现了西太平洋的垂直结构，但高估了夏季O-3水平至800 hPa以下。在工业化的珠三角地区，对流层低层的集合平均值呈现高估，而对流层中层的集合平均值则呈现低估。与某些个别模型相比，O-3 13 个模型的总体平均值并不总是表现出优越的性能，这与其在欧洲的卓越价值形成鲜明对比。这一发现表明，集合模型值的分布并不代表 O-3 的所有不确定性，或者大多数 MICS-Asia III 模型错过了关键过程。与 MICS-Asia II 相比，这项研究提高了 3 月份在日本站点进行的 O-3 建模的性能。然而，它高估了 7 月份日本西部的地表 O-3 浓度，而亚洲 II 型 MICS 并未发现这一点。在确定 CTM 中东亚上空 O-3 表面偏差的来源方面仍然存在重大挑战。
Spatiotemporal variations of ozone (O-3) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) mixing ratios from 14 state-of-the-art chemical transport models (CTMs) are intercompared and evaluated with O-3 observations in East Asia, within the framework of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia Phase III (MICS-Asia III). This study was designed to evaluate the capabilities and uncertainties of current CTMs simulations for Asia and to provide multi-model estimates of pollutant distributions. These models were run by 14 independent groups working in China, Japan, South Korea, the United States and other countries/regions. Compared with the previous phase of MICS-Asia (MICS-Asia II), the evaluation with observations was extended from 4 months to 1 full year across China and the western Pacific Rim. In general, model performance levels for O-3 varied widely by region and season. Most models captured the key patterns of monthly and diurnal variation of surface O-3 and its precursors in the North China Plain and western Pacific Rim but failed to do so for the Pearl River Delta. A significant overestimation of surface O-3 was evident from May to September/October and from January to May over the North China Plain, the western Pacific Rim and the Pearl River Delta. Comparisons drawn from observations show that the considerable diversity in O-3 photochemical production partly contributed to this overestimation and to high levels of inter-model variability in O-3 for North China. In terms of O-3 soundings, the ensemble average of models reproduced the vertical structure for the western Pacific, but overestimated O-3 levels to below 800 hPa in the summer. In the industrialized Pearl River Delta, the ensemble average presented an overestimation for the lower troposphere and an underestimation for the middle troposphere. The ensemble average of 13 models for O-3 did not always exhibit superior performance compared with certain individual models in contrast with its superior value for Europe. This finding suggests that the spread of ensemble-model values does not represent all of the uncertainties of O-3 or that most MICS-Asia III models missed key processes. This study improved the performance of modeling O-3 in March at Japanese sites compared with MICS-Asia II. However, it overpredicted surface O-3 concentrations for western Japan in July, which was not found by MICS-Asia II. Major challenges still remain with regard to identifying the sources of bias in surface O-3 over East Asia in CTMs.