Transcript ECLAIRE model comparison - Accent

ÉCLAIRE model inter-comparison of
atmospheric nitrogen deposition and
concentrations over Europe
R.J. Wichink Kruit1, D. Simpson2, M. Schaap1, R. Kranenburg1, E. Dammers1,
C.A. Geels3, C. Skjoth4, M. Engardt5, A. Graff6, R. Stern7 , B. Bessagnet8, L. Rouil8,
J.M. Baldasano9, M. Pay9, D. Hauglustaine10, A. Nyiri2, M.A. Sutton11, S. Reis11,
P. Thunis12 and C. Cuvelier12
1
TNO, Dept. of Climate, Air and Sustainability, P.O. Box 80015, NL-3508TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Air Pollution Section Research Department, P.O. Box 43, Blindern, N-0313, Oslo, Norway
3 Aarhus University, Department of Environmental Science-Atmospheric modeling, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
4 University of Worcester, National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, Henwick Grove, VR2 6AJ, Worcester, United Kingdom
5 SMHI, Norkoping
6 Umweltbundesamt, Postfach 1406, D-06813 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
7 Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Meteorologie und Troposphärische Umweltforschung, Carl-Heinrich-Becker Weg 6-10, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
8 INERIS, Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques Parc Technologique, ALATA, F-60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France
9 Barcelona Supercomputing Center, c/ Jordi Girona 29, E-08034 Barcelona, Spain
10 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, UMR 8212 CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
11 CEH, Natural Environmental Research Council, Bush Estate, Pinicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB
12 European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, I-21020 Ispra (Va), Italy
2
Motivation
It is difficult to say anything about uncertainties in model calculations of
Nr-deposition as there are no observations of total Nr deposition
available yet.
This study aims to:
deliver an ensemble map of the total Nr-deposition over Europe based
on 7 regional European CTMs, and to
estimate the inter-model variation in the total Nr-deposition over Europe
validate the models by comparing modelled wet depositions and
concentrations with observations from the EMEP wet deposition
network and NitroEurope IP
3
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Model settings
Models: EMEP, LOTOS-EUROS, DEHM,
MATCH, CMAQ, CHIMERE, RCGC,
INCA (global)
Emissions: provided by INERIS at
0.5° x 0.25° Longitude/Latitude
Note: INCA used own emissions!
Resolution: 0.5° x 0.25° (~28x28 km2)
DEHM: hemispheric (~ 50x50 km2)
INCA (global): 3.75° x 1.875° (~210x210 km2)
Other Input: not prescribed.
Output domain:
Domain
nx ny
ΔLon
(°)
ΔLat
(°)
ΔLon x ΔLat
(km x km)
SW corner grid centre
(Lon / Lat)
Europe
82
0.5
0.25
28 x 28 (N) 44 x 28 (S)
-10.25 / 36.00
104
4
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Individual model results
dry NHx
wet NHx
dry NOy
wet NOy
EMEP
CMAQ
CHIMERE
RCGC
MATCH
LOTOSEUROS
DEHM
INCA
5
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Ensemble of 7
regional CTMs:
Total Nr
6
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Contribution of NHx to total Nr
7
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
10-day running mean of model domain
Total Nr
Dry Nr ~ 40%
Wet Nr ~ 60%
8
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Contribution of dry Nr to total Nr
9
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
10-day running mean of model domain
Dry NHx ~ 45%
Dry NOy ~ 35%
Wet NHx ~ 55%
Wet Noy ~ 65%
10
KLD presentatie 24-maart 2011
Development of GHG projection guidelines
Conclusions from model inter-comparison
This study showed that the total Nr-deposition (NHx +NOy) in the
model domain were rather similar in all models
The variation in model results is largest for the dry deposition of NHx
Larger dry deposition is compensated by smaller wet deposition
The average variation in the modeled Nr-deposition was about
30-50% over land and
50-100% over water
NHx vs. NOy deposition is approximately 50% vs. 50%, but large
regional differences!
Dry versus wet deposition contributions are approximately
45% vs. 55% for NHx and
35% vs. 65% for NOy and
40% vs. 60% for total Nr (but large regional differences again!)
11
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Comparison with EMEP wet deposition and
NitroEurope IP observation
EMEP
LOTOS-EUROS
Wet
NHx
y = 0.4931x + 20.59
R² = 0.241
y = 0.5567x
R² = -0.243
100
average
32.42
50
LOTOSEUROS
100
EMEP
CMAQ RCGC
150
20.56
y = 0.3954x36.58
+ 12.358
39.74
0
0
150
r2
16.05
1.00
bias
0.00
rel. bias
1.00
8.76y = 0.7025x
16.12
R² = 0.0965
0.19
0.63
0
0
N
0.24
-11.86
68
150
25.18y = 0.2747x20.90
+ 11.991
25.29
10.25
100
0.15
0.38
50
4.16
7.31
-7.24
1.13
1.23
0.78
0
50
68
100
150
100
68
150
68
0
y = 0.4394x + 15.57
R² = 0.2253
30.82
13.46
14.86
16.90
100
y = 0.8262x
R² = 0.0085
20.16
14.75
0.11
0.23
0.18
0.17
0.23
-1.60
y = 0.5726x
R² = -0.049
-11.52
0.64
50
100
68
-0.07
11.04
0.92
1.00
0
1.34
150
68
68
150
50
0.95
100
150
68
68
ENSEMBLE
y = 0.436x + 16.688
R² = 0.2251
y = 1.1801x
R² = -0.178
y = 0.8506x
R² = -0.028
100
50
0
100
0
150
100
0
50
50
43.46
-2.61
50
0
150
y = 0.5162x + 26.722
R² = 0.1689
50
150
32.35
150
y = 0.447x + 17.857
R² = 0.1802
y = 0.8906x
R² = -0.04
100
INCADEHMENSEMBLE
INCA
150
50
29.81
68
MATCH
100
0
R² = 0.1074
100
50
50
CMAQ CHIMERE
CHIMEREDEHM MATCH
R² = 0.3837
stdev
y = 1.1047x
R² = 0.0216
0
50
y = 0.604x + 20.154
R² = 0.147
100
50
50
0
OBSERVED
y = 1.0046x
R² = -0.081
100
0
wet NHx
150
y = 0.2358x + 12.914
R² = 0.1869
[mg/m2]
RCGC
150
150
0
0
50
100
150
0
50
100
150
EMEP
LOTOS-EUROS
200
Wet
NOy
y = 0.584x + 21.008
R² = 0.5897
y = 0.7728x
R² = 0.5156
150
[mg/m2]
200
100
100
50
50
50
0
LOTOSEUROS
50
100
y = 0.824x + 22.247
41.91
150
y = 1.0239x
R² = 0.5508
r2
1.00
100
bias
0.00
rel. bias
1.00
stdev
92.58
0.5927
75.07 R² =102.59
200
89.75
98.53
150
37.20
42.93
44.86
0.59
0.39
0.15
50
-17.51
10.01
0.81
1.11
0
68
50
68
100
150
68
50
y = 0.4365x + 64.598
R² = 0.3385
105.01
y = 1.017x
R² = -0.381
200
0
200
74.28 105.55
150
32.14
100
0.59
0.34
0.46
-2.83
50
5.95
12.43
0.97
1.06
0
200
68
0
68
100
50
12.97
-3.19
5.33
0.80
1.14
0
150
68
200
68
0
200
1.06
150
200
68
68
y = 0.5584x + 46.207
R² = 0.499
y = 0.9737x
R² = 0.1674
150
50
0
200
100
ENSEMBLE
50
150
0.97
50
68
50
100
97.91
-18.30
100
50
89.39
y = 0.7443x
R² = 0.24
0.50
100
0
y = 0.457x + 31.97
R² = 0.4571
0.32
100
0
200
100
0.52
y = 0.4026x + 52.125
R² = 0.3211
y = 0.871x
R² = -0.201
150
150
33.14
INCA
200
100
29.78
1.13
50
50
INCADEHMENSEMBLE
28.33
y = 0.5536x + 54.301
R² = 0.5213
y = 1.0416x
R² = 0.0344
150
150
31.44
MATCH
200
100
CMAQ CHIMERE
CHIMEREDEHM MATCH
31.87
0
N
0
0
200
EMEP
CMAQ RCGC
200
average
150
y = 0.8732x
R² = -0.111
150
100
0
OBSERVED
y = 0.5574x + 50.984
R² = 0.3945
y = 1.0156x
R² = 0.0741
150
0
wet NOy
RCGC
200 y = 0.3965x + 53.046
R² = 0.1499
0
0
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
200
14
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
NH3
EMEP
CMAQ
ENSEMBLE
CHIMERE
RCGC
MATCH
LOTOSEUROS
DEHM
INCA
15
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
EMEP
LOTOS-EUROS
6
14
NH3
y = 0.7122x + 0.4567
R² = 0.525
5
12
y = 0.8623x
R² = 0.4865
10
4
6
6
4
4
2
2
stdev
r2
1.84
1.50
1.00
LOTOSEUROS
14
12
10
10
4
EMEP
CMAQ RCGC
1.77
1.32
2.86
y = 0.4361x + 0.5312
1.48
1.07R² = 0.37132.21
y = 0.6107x
R² = 0.273
8
0.525
0.518
0.484
rel. bias
N
0.00
1.00
-0.07
0
-0.52
0.96
0
51
5
10
15
51
1.01
0.72
5
51
1.55
10
1.33
14
1.36
1.50
y = 0.4522x + 0.523
R² = 0.3991
12
1.07
10
1.07
8
0.371
0.399
1.15
y = 0.6241x
R² = 0.3039
0.496
4
-0.51
-0.49
2
0.72
0
15
0
51
51
-0.34
0.74
5
y = 0.478x + 0.3299
R² = 0.4786
y = 0.5865x
R² = 0.4379
0.164
51
4
-0.63
2
0.66
0
15
0
51
51
12
10
1.20
0.512
-0.11
1.36
5
51
0.94
10
15
y = 0.5717x + 0.6773
R² = 0.5115
y = 0.7944x
R² = 0.3834
12
10
y = 0.9867x
R² = -0.336
8
8
6
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
15
y = 0.7045x
R² = 0.4173
0.66
14
y = 0.418x + 1.7301
R² = 0.1635
6
10
1.73
y = 0.5381x + 0.5061
R² = 0.4955
ENSEMBLE
4
5
2.50
8
0.479
6
0
15
INCADEHMENSEMBLE
1.55
0.81
10
14
8
12
10
1.04
10
INCA
14
10
1.21
14
5
6
MATCH
12
0
CMAQ CHIMERE
CHIMEREDEHM MATCH
6
4
2
0
0
15
6
6
bias
8
0
25
y = 1.3429x
R² = 0.4072
10
y = 0.6369x
R² = 0.4698
6
2
4
y = -0.0168x + 1.8112
R² = 0.1127
y = 1.0253x + 0.9661
R² = 0.4838
12
8
00
average
14
y = 0.5147x + 0.3718
R² = 0.5181
12
10
00
OBSERVED
14
8
3
1
2
NH3
RCGC
0
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
51
16
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Conclusions from comparison with observations
Ensemble results of the seven regional CTM models are generally
better than the individual model results
Modelled wet deposition of NOy correlates much better with observed
wet deposition than NHx.
Regional CTMs are well able to estimate ‘background’ NH3
concentrations
Data from NitroEurope IP is very useful for the ECLAIRE model
evaluation!
Further analysis of the model-measurement comparison and reasons
for inter-model differences is a priority for the next phase in ECLAIRE.
17
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
Thank you!
18
ECLAIRE model comparison
Modelling the European Nitrogen budget
EMEP
LOTOS-EUROS
4
HNO3
y = 0.2941x + 0.2755
R² = 0.2114
3.5
3
y = 0.4978x
R² = 0.0881
2.5
4
RCGC
y = 0.398x + 0.2409
R² = 0.2079
3.5
y = 0.5762x
R² = 0.1573
3
2.5
4
3
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
4
CMAQ
4
y = 0.7955x
R² = 0.2247
3
2.5
1
2
3
4
0
4
y = 0.3291x + 0.2563
R² = 0.237
3.5
y = 0.5187x
R² = 0.1415
3
2.5
4
2.5
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
2
3
4
0
0
1
MATCH
4
3
y = 0.5304x
R² = -0.018
2.5
2
3
4
0
INCA
y = 0.2736x + 0.3472
R² = 0.2551
3.5
4
y = 0.4246x + 0.8198
R² = 0.1021
3.5
y = 1.0308x
R² = -0.151
3
2.5
3
2
2
1.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
2
3
4
3
4
y = 0.3679x + 0.3519
R² = 0.219
y = 0.6282x
R² = 0.0858
2.5
1.5
1
2
4
3.5
2
0
1
ENSEMBLE
1.5
0
4
y = 0.6015x
R² = 0.0966
3
1.5
1
3
y = 0.3653x + 0.3194
R² = 0.1963
3.5
2
0
2
DEHM
2
0
1
CHIMERE
y = 0.5468x + 0.3362
R² = 0.3001
3.5
y = 0.4722x
R² = 0.0535
2.5
1.5
0
y = 0.3035x + 0.2281
R² = 0.0858
3.5
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4