MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4402408513 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2024-2226-rc1

Comment on egusphere-2024-2226

2024· peer-review· en· W4402408513 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepeer-review
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Établissements canadiensEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract. Exceedances of critical loads for deposition of sulphur (S) and nitrogen (N) to different ecosystems were estimated using European and North American ensembles of air quality models, under Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), to identify where risk of ecosystem harm is expected to occur based on model deposition estimates. The ensembles were driven by common emissions and lateral boundary condition inputs. Model output was regridded to common North American and Europe 0.125° resolution domains, which were then used to calculate critical load exceedances. New, targeted deposition diagnostics implemented in AQMEII4 allowed an unprecedented level of post-simulation analysis to be carried out and facilitated the identification of specific causes of model-to-model variability in critical load exceedance estimates. New datasets for North American critical loads for acidity for forest soil water and aquatic ecosystems were combined with the ensemble deposition predictions to show a substantial decrease in the area and number of locations in exceedance between 2010 and 2016 (forest soils: 13.2 % to 6.1 %; aquatic ecosystems: 21.2 % to 11.4 %). All models agreed in the direction of the ensemble exceedance change between 2010 and 2016. The North American ensemble also predicted a decrease in both severity and total area in exceedance between the years 2010 and 2016 for eutrophication-impacted ecosystems in the USA (sensitive epiphytic lichen: 81.5 % to 75.8 %). The exceedances for herbaceous community richness also decreased between 2010 and 2016, from 13.9 % to 3.9 %. The uncertainty associated with the North American eutrophication results is high; there were sharp differences between the models in both predictions of total N deposition and the change in N deposition, and hence in the predicted eutrophication exceedances between the two years. The European ensemble was used to predict relatively static exceedances of critical loads with respect to acidification (4.48 % to 4.32 % from 2009 to 2010) while eutrophication exceedance increased slightly (60.2 % to 62.2 %). While most models showed the same changes in critical load exceedances as the ensemble between the two years, the spatial extent and magnitude of exceedances varied significantly between the models. The reasons for this variation were examined in detail by first ranking the relative contribution of different sources of sulphur and nitrogen deposition in terms of deposited mass and model-to-model variability in that deposited mass, followed by their analysis using AQMEII4 diagnostics, along with evaluation of the most recent literature. All models in both the North American and European ensembles had net annual negative biases with respect to observed wet deposition of sulphate, nitrate and ammonium. Diagnostics and recent literature suggest that this bias may stem from insufficient cloud scavenging of aerosols and gases, and may be improved through the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging within the modelling frameworks. The inability of North American models to predict the timing of the seasonal peak in wet ammonium ion deposition (observed maximum was in April, while all models predicted a June maximum) may also relate to the need for multiphase hydrometeor scavenging (absence of snow scavenging in all models employed here). High variability in the relative importance of particulate sulphate, nitrate and ammonium deposition fluxes between models was linked to the use of updated particle dry deposition parameterizations in some models. However, recent literature and further development of some of the models within the ensemble suggests these particulate biases may also be ameliorated via the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging. Annual sulphur and nitrogen deposition prediction variability was linked to SO2 and HNO3 dry deposition parameterizations, and diagnostic analysis showed that the cuticle and soil deposition pathways dominate the deposition mass flux of these species. Further work improving parameterizations for these deposition pathways should reduce variability in model acidifying gas deposition estimates. The absence of base cation chemistry in some models was shown to be a major factor in positive biases in fine mode particulate ammonium and particle nitrate concentrations. Models employing ammonia bidirectional fluxes had both the largest and the smallest magnitude biases, depending on the model and bidirectional flux algorithm employed. A careful analysis of bidirectional flux models suggests that those with poor NH3 performance may underestimate the extent of NH3 emissions fluxes from forested areas. Based on these results, an increased process-research focus is therefore recommended for the following model processes and on observations which may assist in model evaluation and improvement: multiphase hydrometeor scavenging combined with updated particle dry deposition, cuticle and soil deposition pathway algorithms for acidifying gases, base cation chemistry and emissions, and NH3 bidirectional fluxes. Comparisons with satellite observations suggest that oceanic NH3 emissions sources should be included in regional chemical transport models. The choice of land use database employed within any given model was shown to significantly influence deposition totals in several instances, and employing a common land use database across chemical transport models and critical load calculations is recommended for future work.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,286
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,957

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0050,003
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0260,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2860,217

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics→Travaux en français237 207→