Definition and diagnostics for the model observations comparison
Download
1 / 14

Definition and diagnostics for the model-observations comparison - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 106 Views
  • Uploaded on

Definition and diagnostics for the model-observations comparison. Christina Schnadt Poberaj. Evaluation of multi-model performance (WP 3.1.1) Definition of model simulations: simulations of selected years, comparison of model results with observations in the ETH meg database

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Definition and diagnostics for the model-observations comparison' - ulysses-watkins


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Definition and diagnostics for the model observations comparison

Definition and diagnostics for the model-observations comparison

Christina Schnadt Poberaj


Evaluation of multi-model performance (WP 3.1.1) comparison

Definition of model simulations: simulations of selected years, comparison of model results with observations in the ETHmeg database

Diagnostics of key processes relevant for the effects of the different modes of transportations:

stratosphere-troposphere exchange of O3 and NOx

boundary layer venting

convective transport of pollutants emitted at the surface


Evaluation of multi-model performance comparison

Definition of model simulations: simulations of selected years, comparison of model results with observations in the ETHmeg database

Model evaluation: year 2003

Campaign data to be used: SPURT, UTOPOHIAN_Act, MOZAIC, CONTRACE, VINTERSOL, INTEX, SCIAMACHY NO2 columns


Evaluation of multi-model performance comparison

Boundary conditions for 2003 runs:

Model will be run in the same set-up as in the current impact study (WP3.1.2)

Anthropogenic emissions year 2000: EDGAR 3.2 Fast Track 2000

GHGs CO2, CH4, N2O, and F-gases (HFCs, PFCs, and SF6)

air pollutants CO, NMVOC, NOx, SO2

Large-scale biomass burning: annual burned area estimates for 1997-2000 average, or actual 2000 area, or EDGAR 3.2 emission factors, or factors compiled by Andreae and Merlet (2001)

Biogenic NO, isoprene, and monoterpene emissions soon available by MPI for chemistry

Lightning NOx: 5 Tg (N)/yr

Transport emissions: from Activity 1 if available (report by Peter)

otherwise road traffic (Volker), air traffic (AERO2K or

DLR1992), shipping emissions (via UiO, Endresen)


Fundamental evaluation of model performance comparison

Comparison with observations:

Comparison of observed and modelled tropospheric ozone and CO (O3 at various altitudes, surface O3, CO)

Time series

Model biases

Correlations

Skill scores

Model-model intercomparisons:

Intercomparisons between models: zonal means and horizontal distributions of relevant species (O3, CO, CH4, NO2, (NOx), CH2O, HNO3, OH, SO2, H2SO4)


Model evaluation of RETRO 1997 test simulations using ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)


Brunner et al. ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

(2005)


Model biases at individual ozonesonde stations ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

or airports

(MOZAIC airport profiles)

Identify model biases:

Scatterplots O3, NOx, CO, …

TM4, RETRO project

1997 quasi-monthly means (dates where ozonesonde data available only)


Brunner et al. ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

(2003)


Testing the skill of the models: ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

Taylor diagrams

  • correlation coefficient,

  • pattern root-mean square (RMS) error,

  • ratio of modelled/observed standard

  • deviation

  • all indicated by a single point

  • Example C1

  • correlation 0.52

  • normalized standard deviation 1.2

  • RMS error proportional to linear distance between Ref. and C1

  • skill score 0.60


Diagnostics of key processes ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

Troposphere-stratosphere mixing:

CO-O3 correlation

Boundary layer venting: analyse vertical tracer profiles

(radon, CH3I)

Stratosphere-troposphere exchange: ideas?

Convective transport: ideas?


Identify troposphere-to-stratosphere transport: ozonesonde station data (left) and CMDL stations data for surface ozone and CO (right)

O3-CO correlations

From Hoor et al. (JGR, 2002)


  • MOZAIC, SPURT data: tropopause information (ERA40) interpolated onto flight tracks available

  • (dynamical tropopause (PV2), potential temperature at dyn. tropopause, pressure at dyn. tropopause)

  • analysis relative to tropopause possible

  • additional model output recommended:

    PV2 tropopause, pressure, pot. temperature at

    dyn. tropopause, PV at flight coordinates

    Tropopause routine by D. Brunner and timepos files

    will be provided by end of year 2005.


Planned schedule interpolated onto flight tracks available

  • Extension of database for the year 2003 completed:

  • by end of year 2005

  • Extension of database finished: end of January 2006

  • Validation of 2003 simulations: start in September 2006


ad