Characteristics of STILT footprints driven by KIM model simulated meteorological fields: implication for developing near real-time footprints

IF 1.1 Q4 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Samuel Takele Kenea, Haeyoung Lee, Sangwon Joo, Miloslav Belorid, Shanlan Li, Lev D. Labzovskii, Sanghun Park
{"title":"Characteristics of STILT footprints driven by KIM model simulated meteorological fields: implication for developing near real-time footprints","authors":"Samuel Takele Kenea,&nbsp;Haeyoung Lee,&nbsp;Sangwon Joo,&nbsp;Miloslav Belorid,&nbsp;Shanlan Li,&nbsp;Lev D. Labzovskii,&nbsp;Sanghun Park","doi":"10.1007/s44273-023-00016-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study presents an analysis of the atmospheric footprint sensitivities and CO<sub>2</sub> enhancements measured at three in situ stations in South Korea (Anmyeondo (AMY), Gosan (JGS), Ulleungdo (ULD)) using the KIM-STILT and WRF-STILT atmospheric transport models. Monthly aggregated footprints for each station were compared between the models for July and December 2020. The footprints revealed major source regions and the sensitivity of atmospheric mole fractions at the receptor to upstream surface fluxes. In July, both models showed similar major source regions for the AMY station, including Korea, the Yellow Sea, and Japan. However, a discrepancy was observed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, with KIM-STILT showing larger sensitivity compared to WRF-STILT. In December, both models indicated strong sensitivity over Northeast and Eastern China, but KIM-STILT exhibited smaller sensitivities towards Northwestern China and Mongolia compared to WRF-STILT. At station ULD in July, both models exhibited comparable source regions, but a notable difference was found in Southeast China, where KIM-STILT showed stronger sensitivity. For the JGS station, both models agreed on major sources, but WRF-STILT demonstrated stronger sensitivity over North and Northeastern China. Regarding CO<sub>2</sub> enhancements, both models generally underestimated the amplitude of CO<sub>2</sub> enhancements, especially in July. However, in December, there was better agreement with observed data. The models were able to reproduce the phase of measured ΔCO<sub>2</sub> reasonably well despite the underestimation of CO<sub>2</sub> amplitudes. The contribution of biospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to the observed enhancements, along with fossil-fuel emissions, was highlighted. In specific cases with significant CO<sub>2</sub> enhancements, the models provided varying estimates of CO<sub>2</sub>ff values, particularly in the source regions of Eastern China. The differences in sensitivity estimations emphasize the need for further investigation to understand the underlying factors causing disparities. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the potential advantages of each model in capturing dispersion patterns in specific regions, highlighting the importance of understanding these differences to improve the accuracy of atmospheric transport models. Further work is necessary to address the observed disparities and enhance our understanding of the transport models in the studied regions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45358,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44273-023-00016-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44273-023-00016-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the atmospheric footprint sensitivities and CO2 enhancements measured at three in situ stations in South Korea (Anmyeondo (AMY), Gosan (JGS), Ulleungdo (ULD)) using the KIM-STILT and WRF-STILT atmospheric transport models. Monthly aggregated footprints for each station were compared between the models for July and December 2020. The footprints revealed major source regions and the sensitivity of atmospheric mole fractions at the receptor to upstream surface fluxes. In July, both models showed similar major source regions for the AMY station, including Korea, the Yellow Sea, and Japan. However, a discrepancy was observed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, with KIM-STILT showing larger sensitivity compared to WRF-STILT. In December, both models indicated strong sensitivity over Northeast and Eastern China, but KIM-STILT exhibited smaller sensitivities towards Northwestern China and Mongolia compared to WRF-STILT. At station ULD in July, both models exhibited comparable source regions, but a notable difference was found in Southeast China, where KIM-STILT showed stronger sensitivity. For the JGS station, both models agreed on major sources, but WRF-STILT demonstrated stronger sensitivity over North and Northeastern China. Regarding CO2 enhancements, both models generally underestimated the amplitude of CO2 enhancements, especially in July. However, in December, there was better agreement with observed data. The models were able to reproduce the phase of measured ΔCO2 reasonably well despite the underestimation of CO2 amplitudes. The contribution of biospheric CO2 to the observed enhancements, along with fossil-fuel emissions, was highlighted. In specific cases with significant CO2 enhancements, the models provided varying estimates of CO2ff values, particularly in the source regions of Eastern China. The differences in sensitivity estimations emphasize the need for further investigation to understand the underlying factors causing disparities. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the potential advantages of each model in capturing dispersion patterns in specific regions, highlighting the importance of understanding these differences to improve the accuracy of atmospheric transport models. Further work is necessary to address the observed disparities and enhance our understanding of the transport models in the studied regions.

由 KIM 模型模拟气象场驱动的 STILT 脚印的特征:对开发近实时脚印的影响
本研究利用 KIM-STILT 和 WRF-STILT 大气传输模式,对韩国三个实地站点(安眠岛 (AMY)、龟山 (JGS)、郁陵岛 (ULD))测得的大气足迹敏感性和二氧化碳增量进行了分析。对各站 2020 年 7 月和 12 月的月综合足迹进行了比较。足迹显示了主要来源区域以及受体处大气分子分数对上游地表通量的敏感性。7 月,两个模式都显示 AMY 站的主要来源区域相似,包括韩国、黄海和日本。然而,在东太平洋出现了差异,KIM-STILT 的敏感性高于 WRF-STILT。在 12 月,两个模式都对中国东北和华东地区有很强的敏感性,但 KIM-STILT 对中国西北和蒙古的敏感性比 WRF-STILT 小。在 7 月的 ULD 站,两种模式都显示了相似的源区,但在中国东南部发现了明显的差异,KIM-STILT 在那里显示了更强的敏感性。对于 JGS 站,两种模式在主要来源上达成了一致,但 WRF-STILT 在华北和东北地区的灵敏度更高。在二氧化碳增强方面,两种模式都普遍低估了二氧化碳增强的幅度,尤其是在 7 月份。然而,在 12 月份,模型与观测数据的吻合度较高。尽管低估了 CO2 的振幅,但模式能够较好地再现实测 ΔCO2 的相位。生物圈二氧化碳以及化石燃料排放对观测到的增强现象的贡献得到了强调。在二氧化碳显著增加的特定情况下,模式提供了不同的 CO2ff 值估计,特别是在中国东部的源区。灵敏度估计值的差异强调了进一步调查的必要性,以了解造成差异的潜在因素。总之,这项研究为了解每种模式在捕捉特定区域扩散模式方面的潜在优势提供了宝贵的见解,突出了了解这些差异对提高大气传输模式精度的重要性。有必要开展进一步的工作,以解决观测到的差异,并加强我们对所研究区域的传输模式的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment
Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
22
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信