Abstract
An evaluation has been made of a range of simple and complex atmospheric transport models, applied to estimate sulphur and nitrogen deposition in the UK in order to provide information to policy makers to support decisions on future model use. The models were evaluated by comparison with annually averaged measurements from the national monitoring networks. A number of statistical metrics were output to assess model performance and the models were compared graphically by plotting cross-country transects of concentrations in air.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chemel C, Sokhi RS, Yu Y, Hayman GD, Vincent KJ, Dore AJ, Prain HD, Fisher BEA (2010) Evaluation of a CMAQ simulation at high resolution over the UK for the calendar year 2003. Atmos Environ 44:2927–2939
Matejko M, Dore AJ, Hall J, Dore CJ, Błaś M, Kryza M, Smith R, Fowler D (2009) The influence of long term trends in pollutant emissions on deposition of sulphur and nitrogen and exceedance of critical loads in the United Kingdom. Environ Sci Policy 12:882–896
Page TP, Whyatt JD, Metcalfe SE, Derwent RG, Curtis C (2008) Assessment of uncertainties in a long range atmospheric transport model: methodology, application and implications in a UK context. Environ Pollut 156:997–1006
Redington AL, Derwent RG, Witham CS, Manning AJ (2009) Sensitivity of modelled UK sulphate and nitrate aerosol to cloud, pH and ammonia emissions. Atmos Environ 43:3227–3234
Simpson D, Benedictow A, Berge H, Bergstrom, Emberson LD, Fagerli H, Hayman GD, Gauss M, Jonson JE, Jenkin ME, NyÃri A, Richter C, Semeena VS, Tsyro S, Tuovinen J-P, Valdebenito A, Wind P (2012) The EMEP MSC-W chemical transport model – part 1: model description. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 12:3781–3874
Vieno M, Dore AJ, Stevenson DS, Doherty R, Heal MR, Reis S, Hallsworth S, Tarrason L, Wind P, Fowler D, Simpson D, Sutton MA (2010) Modelling surface ozone during the 2003 heat-wave in the UK. Atmos Chem Phys 10:7963–7978
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
Questions and Answers
Questioner Name: Jeff Weil
Q: Don’t you need uncertainty estimates in addition to mean concentration to assess whether or not finer grid resolution is giving meaningful results? Can you resolve the difference in mean correlation between two neighbouring grids outside the uncertainty limits?
A: For the example presented (exceedance of the critical level for ammonia over nature reserves) we are confident that the higher resolution (1Â km) simulation is an improvement over the coarser (5Â km) grid. The reason for this is that the source (agricultural) areas are better spatially resolved from the sink (nature reserve) areas. i.e. cattle are not permitted to graze in Special Areas of Conservation in a more effective manner using 1Â km resolution NH3 emissions.
In a generic sense, uncertainty in chemical transport models may be higher with increased grid resolution depending on success in resolving the driving process (emissions, chemistry, meteorology or land use).
Questioner Name: Jordi Vila
Q: Can you comment on the difference between the resolution of measurements (very much influenced by local micro-meteorological effects) and the model resolution (∼5 km)?
A: The models (with ∼5 km grid resolution) are not able to capture in detail local meteorological effects on air concentrations and these may be significant. Only rural sites were used in the inter-comparison (located >2.5 km from a major road for NO2 measurements). The models generally gave good correlation with NO2 measurements but correlation was less good for NH3 (where emissions are mixed into the rural landscape).
Questioner Name: Peter Builtjes
Q: What would be your guess of the uncertainty of total N deposition over the UK?
A: Taking into account uncertainties in emissions (magnitude and mapping), modelled nitrogen concentrations (in air and precipitation), deposition velocities and annual precipitation, uncertainty in total modelled nitrogen deposition at a grid point could be ∼ +/−50 %.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dore, A.J. et al. (2014). Evaluation and Inter-comparison of Acid Deposition Models for the UK. In: Steyn, D., Builtjes, P., Timmermans, R. (eds) Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XXII. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5577-2_85
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5577-2_85
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5576-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5577-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)