The community atmospheric chemistry box model CAABA/MECCA-4.0

Sander, R.; Baumgaertner, A. J. G.; Cabrera-Perez, David; Frank, Franziska; Gromov, Sergey; Grooß, Jens‐Uwe; Harder, Hartwig; Huijnen, Vincent; Jöckel, Patrick; Karydis, Vlassis A.; Niemeyer, Kyle E.; Pozzer, Andrea; Riede, Hella; Schultz, Martin; Taraborrelli, Domenico; Tauer, Sebastian

doi:10.5194/gmd-12-1365-2019

Cited by 94 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For solving both the tropospheric and stratospheric reaction mechanism we use KPP-based four stages and thirdorder Rosenbrock solvers (Sandu and Sander, 2006). Photolysis rates for reactions occurring in both the troposphere and stratosphere are merged at the interface in order to ensure a smooth transition between the two schemes.…”

Section: Ifs(cb05bascoe)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such differences are bound to impact the effective degradation of VOCs and thus ozone production efficiency and oxidation capacity (e.g. Sander et al, 2019).…”

Section: Key Differences In Chemistry Modulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…significantly larger tropospheric NO x lifetimes in MOC compared to CBA and MOZ. In contrast, the NO x lifetime in the IFS(CB05BASCOE) scheme is comparatively short, which is associated with a diagnosed relatively efficient organic nitrate production term from the reaction of NO x with VOCs in the modified CB05 mechanism compared to other mechanisms, as assessed in a box-modelling configuration (Sander et al, 2019). Figure 2 also shows the annual zonal mean concentrations of OH.…”

Section: Assessment Of Inter-model Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the underestimation appears to be ubiquitously distributed, this suggests that C 2 H 4 decomposition is too strong or that the model versions miss some chemical production terms (e.g. Sander et al, 2019).…”

Section: Ethene (C 2 H 4 )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling – evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the CAMS model (cycle 43R1)

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We report on an evaluation of tropospheric ozone and its precursor gases in three atmospheric chemistry versions as implemented in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS), referred to as IFS(CB05BASCOE), IFS(MOZART) and IFS(MOCAGE). While the model versions were forced with the same overall meteorology, emissions, transport and deposition schemes, they vary largely in their parameterisations describing atmospheric chemistry, including the organics degradation, heterogeneous chemistry and photolysis, as well as chemical solver. The model results from the three chemistry versions are compared against a range of aircraft field campaigns, surface observations, ozone-sondes and satellite observations, which provides quantification of the overall model uncertainty driven by the chemistry parameterisations. We find that they produce similar patterns and magnitudes for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3), as well as a range of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs), with averaged differences for O3 (CO) within 10 % (20 %) throughout the troposphere. Most of the divergence in the magnitude of CO and NMHCs can be explained by differences in OH concentrations, which can reach up to 50 %, particularly at high latitudes. There are also comparatively large discrepancies between model versions for NO2, SO2 and HNO3, which are strongly influenced by secondary chemical production and loss. Other common biases in CO and NMHCs are mainly attributed to uncertainties in their emissions. This configuration of having various chemistry versions within IFS provides a quantification of uncertainties induced by chemistry modelling in the main CAMS global trace gas products beyond those that are constrained by data assimilation.

show abstract

Section: Ifs(cb05bascoe)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such differences are bound to impact the effective degradation of VOCs and thus ozone production efficiency and oxidation capacity (e.g. Sander et al, 2019).…”

Section: Key Differences In Chemistry Modulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessment Of Inter-model Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ethene (C 2 H 4 )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling – evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the CAMS model (cycle 43R1)

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If AtChem had used one of the other open source systems as a basis, photolysis could be calculated on-line, where such parameters can be changed. CAABA gives users a range of options for calculating photolysis -JVAL, RADJIMT, DISSOC, (Sander et al, 2019). There's also FAST-JX (Wild et al, 2000) which users of GEOSChem and the UK chemistry and aerosol (UKCA) community prefer (https://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/prather/scholar_software/fast-jx).…”

Section: Discussion Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of AtChem, an open source box-model for the Master Chemical Mechanism by Sommariva et al.

Anonymous

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents a boxmodeling system for the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM). The MCM is a very large, near explicit mechanism describing the degradation of 143 primary compounds into CO2 and H2O. As such, the MCM is too computationally expensive to be run in global chemistry models or even air quality models. However the MCM is often used to benchmark smaller 'lumped' chemistry schemes by comparison using a zero-dimensional boxmodel, or by comparison with results from controlled chamber experiments. Much of the boxmodeling work in the past used expensive commercial software, and this new open source system was developed in part to avoid these costs, but also to provide potential additional capability beyond commercial 'black-box' systems.The paper is generally well written, with examples provided on how the model works C1 GMDD Interactive commentPrinter-friendly version Discussion paper

show abstract

On the Photochemistry of Methane and Ethane in the Martian Atmosphere: Towards Indirect Detection of Methane Emissions

Taysum¹,

Palmer²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• Photochemical products of methane (CH 4) can be used to test indirectly presence of atmospheric CH 4. • Formaldehyde and formic acid are two key photochemical products of CH 4 and ethane (C 2 H 6). • Oxidation of CH 4 and C 2 H 6 produce distinct profiles of photochemical products. • Photolysis of acetaldehyde, produced by C 2 H 6 photochemistry, is a small but significant source of atmospheric CH 4 .

show abstract

The community atmospheric chemistry box model CAABA/MECCA-4.0

Cited by 94 publications

References 112 publications

Quantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling – evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the CAMS model (cycle 43R1)

Quantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling – evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the CAMS model (cycle 43R1)

Review of AtChem, an open source box-model for the Master Chemical Mechanism by Sommariva et al.

On the Photochemistry of Methane and Ethane in the Martian Atmosphere: Towards Indirect Detection of Methane Emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About