MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392601518 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6741

An ensemble investigation of the causes for regional air-quality model critical load exceedances prediction variability in European and North American domains using diagnostics from Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative

2024· preprint· en· W4392601518 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Makar, Philip Cheung, Christian Hogrefe, Akingunola Ayodeji, Ümmügülsüm Alyüz, Jesse O. Bash, Michael D. Bell, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Tim Butler, Hazel Cathcart, Olivia E. Clifton, Amanda Cole, Alma Hodžić, Iannis Kioutsioukis, Richard Kranenburg, Aurelia Lupaşcu, Jason Lynch, J.A. Momoh, J. L. Perez-Camanyo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir quality indexQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceEconometricsStatistical physicsMeteorologyMathematicsGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize tentative findings from multi air quality model ensembles for the years 2009 and 2010 in Europe (EU), and 2010 and 2016 in North America (NA), under AQMEII-4.  The model predictions of sulphur and nitrogen deposition were used to estimate exceedances of critical loads for acidification and eutrophication, to show the extent to which the ensemble members agree in the magnitude and the trend of ecologically meaningful impacts.  Model exceedance variability was analyzed using AQMEII-4 diagnostics.  Evaluation against concentration and wet deposition observations, coupled with these diagnostics, identified specific process representations as the causes for variability between model predictions and for reduced model performance. All models predicted reductions in ecosystem acidification impacts in North America between the years 2010 and 2016, in accord with SO2 emissions reduction legislation which started in 2010 (SO2 SIP) However, all models in EU and NA domains had net negative biases for wet deposition of sulphur and nitrogen relative to observations.  The wet S deposition average mean bias for the NA ensemble was -0.17 eq ha-1 d-1, and for the EU ensemble -1.15 eq ha-1 d-1.  The NA daily wet deposition average mean bias for NH4+ was -0.37 eq ha-1d-1; EU -1.19 eq ha-1 d-1.  The daily NA wet NO3- deposition average mean bias was -0.24 eq ha-1d-1; EU -0.69 eq ha-1 d-1.  The members of the ensemble diverged (factor of 10) in their North American predictions for Ndep and consequently their eutrophication exceedances. The models with the highest eutrophication predictions also predicted the highest levels of gas-phase ammonia dry deposition (standard deviation of ammonia dry deposition flux across ensemble members was larger than the ensemble average).  These models also had negative biases of predicted ammonia concentrations; average mean biases of -0.63 (satellite NH3) and -0.85 ppbv (surface NH3) compared to ensemble averages of -0.30 and -0.34 ppbv.  Diagnostics showed that these differences resulted from the manner in which bidirectional ammonia fluxes were parameterized within these models.  The second largest source of NA eutrophication prediction variability were models with positive biases in particulate ammonium and nitrate concentrations, and higher particle nitrogen deposition levels ( particle ammonium concentration bias +0.35 ug m-3; ensemble bias +0.15 ug m-3).   We believe two factors may have led to these latter overestimates:  higher levels of fine mode particle nitrate formation compared to other models (due to the use of an inorganic heterogeneous chemistry algorithm which did not take base cation chemistry into account), and updates to particle dry deposition velocities carried out in the absence of concurrent updates to wet scavenging algorithms. The relative importance of dry gas, dry particulate, and wet deposition towards total sulphur and nitrogen deposition totals differed between EU and North American domains, though all models had negative biases in wet deposition as noted above.  Parallel and subsequent work suggests that multiphase hydrometeor scavenging may improve model wet deposition performance. An increased research focus is recommended for four model processes: multiphase hydrometeor scavenging, ammonia bidirectional fluxes, base cation chemistry and emissions, and particle dry deposition. 

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207