Reducing Long‐Standing Surface Ozone Overestimation in Earth System Modeling by High‐Resolution Simulation and Dry Deposition Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The overestimation of surface ozone concentration in low‐resolution global atmospheric chemistry and climate models has been a long‐standing issue. We first update the ozone dry deposition scheme in both high‐ (0.25°) and low‐resolution (1°) Community Earth System Model (CESM) version 1.3 runs, by adding the effects of leaf area index and correcting the sunlit and shaded fractions of stomatal resistances. With this update, 5‐year‐long summer simulations (2015–2019) using the low‐resolution CESM still exhibit substantial ozone overestimation (by 6.0–16.2 ppbv) over the U.S., Europe, eastern China, and ozone pollution hotspots. The ozone dry deposition scheme is further improved by adjusting the leaf cuticle conductance, reducing the mean ozone bias by 19%, and increasing the model resolution further reduces the ozone overestimation by 43%. We elucidate the mechanism by which model grid spacing influences simulated ozone, revealing distinctive pathways in urban versus rural areas. In rural areas, grid spacing mainly affects daytime ozone levels, where additional NOx emissions from nearby urban areas result in an ozone boost and overestimation in low‐resolution simulations. In contrast, over urban areas, daytime ozone overestimation follows a similar mechanism due to the influence of volatile organic compounds from surrounding rural areas. However, nighttime ozone overestimation is closely linked to weakened NO titration owing to the redistribution of urban NOx to rural areas. Additionally, stratosphere‐troposphere exchange may also contribute to reducing ozone bias in high‐resolution simulations, warranting further investigation. This optimized high‐resolution CESM may enhance understanding of ozone formation mechanisms, sources, and changes in a warming climate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".