Open AccessThe North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study (NAMMIS): Study description and model‐to‐model comparisons
Author(s) -
Bullock O. Russell,
Atkinson Dwight,
Braverman Thomas,
Civerolo Kevin,
Dastoor Ashu,
Davig Didier,
Ku JiaYeong,
Lohman Kristen,
Myers Thomas C.,
Park Rokjin J.,
Seigneur Christian,
Selin Noelle E.,
Sistla Gopal,
Vijayaraghavan Krish
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/2008jd009803
Subject(s) - mercury (programming language) , cmaq , environmental science , atmospheric sciences , meteorology , climatology , air quality index , geology , geography , computer science , programming language
An atmospheric mercury model intercomparison study has been conducted to compare three regional‐scale atmospheric mercury models, CMAQ, REMSAD, and TEAM, in a tightly constrained testing environment with a focus on North America. Each of these models used the same horizontal modeling grid, pollutant emission information, modeled meteorology, and boundary conditions to the greatest extent practical. Three global‐scale atmospheric mercury models were applied to define three separate initial condition and boundary condition (IC/BC) data sets for elemental mercury, reactive gaseous mercury, and particulate mercury air concentrations for use by the regional‐scale models. The monthly average boundary concentrations of some mercury species simulated by the global models were found to vary by more than a factor of 10, especially at high altitudes. CMAQ, REMSAD, and TEAM were each applied three times, once for each IC/BC data set, to simulate atmospheric mercury transport and deposition during 2001. This paper describes the study design and shows qualitative model‐to‐model comparisons of simulation results on an annual basis. The air concentration patterns for mercury simulated by the regional‐scale models showed significant differences even when the same IC/BC data set was used. Simulated wet deposition of mercury was strongly influenced by the shared precipitation data, but differences of over 50% were still apparent. Simulated dry deposition of mercury was found to vary between the regional‐scale models by nearly a factor of 10 in some locations. Further analysis is underway to perform statistical comparisons of simulated and observed mercury wet deposition using weekly and annual sample integration periods.