Rocío Baró

Evaluation and error apportionment of an ensemble of atmospheric chemistry transport modeling systems : Multivariable temporal and spatial breakdown

Through the comparison of several regional-scale chemistry transport modeling systems that simulate meteorology and air quality over the European and North American continents, this study aims at (i) apportioning error to the responsible processes using timescale analysis, (ii) helping to detect causes of model error, and (iii) identifying the processes and temporal scales most urgently requiring dedicated investigations. The analysis is conducted within the framework of the third phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII) and tackles model performance gauging through measurement-to-model comparison, error decomposition, and time series analysis of the models biases for several fields (ozone, CO, SO2, NO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, wind speed, and temperature). The operational metrics (magnitude of the error, sign of the bias, associativity) provide an overallsense of model strengths and deficiencies, while apportioning the error to its constituent parts (bias, variance, and covariance) can help assess the nature and quality of the error. Each of the error components is analyzed independently and apportioned to specific processes based on the corresponding timescale (long scale, synoptic, diurnal, and intraday) using the error apportionment technique devised in the former phases of AQMEII. The application of the error apportionment method to the AQMEII Phase 3 simulations provides several key insights. In addition to reaffirming the strong impact of model inputs (emission and boundary conditions) and poor representation of the stable boundary layer on model bias, results also highlighted the high interdependencies among meteorological and chemical variables, as well as among their errors. This indicates that the evaluation of air quality model performance for individual pollutants needs to be supported by complementary analysis of meteorological fields and chemical precursors to provide results that are more insightful from a model development perspective. This will require evaluaion methods that are able to frame the impact on error of processes, conditions, and fluxes at the surface. For example, error due to emission and boundary conditions is dominant for primary species (CO, particulate matter (PM)), while errors due to meteorology and chemistry are most relevant to secondary species, such as ozone. Some further aspects emerged whose interpretation requires additional consideration, such as the uniformity of the synoptic error being region- and model-independent, observed for several pollutants; the source of unexplained variance for the diurnal component; and the type of error caused by deposition and at which scale.

Assessment and economic valuation of air pollution impacts on human health over Europe and the United States as calculated by a multi-model ensemble in the framework of AQMEII3

The impact of air pollution on human health and the associated external costs in Europe and the United States (US) for the year 2010 are modeled by a multi-model ensemble of regional models in the frame of the third phase of the Air Quality Modelling Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII3). The modeled surface concentrations of O3, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 are used as input to the Economic Valuation of Air Pollution (EVA) system to calculate the resulting health impacts and the associated external costs from each individual model. Along with a base case simulation, additional runs were performed introducing 20 % anthropogenic emission reductions both globally and regionally in Europe, North America and east Asia, as defined by the second phase of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (TF-HTAP2). Health impacts estimated by using concentration inputs from different chemistry–transport models (CTMs) to the EVA system can vary up to a factor of 3 in Europe (12 models) and the United States (3 models). In Europe, the multi-model mean total number of premature deaths (acute and chronic) is calculated to be 414 000, while in the US, it is estimated to be 160 000, in agreement with previous global and regional studies. The economic valuation of these health impacts is calculated to be EUR 300 billion and 145 billion in Europe and the US, respectively. A subset of models that produce the smallest error compared to the surface observations at each time step against an all-model mean ensemble results in increase of health impacts by up to 30 % in Europe, while in the US, the optimal ensemble mean led to a decrease in the calculated health impacts by ~ 11 %. A total of 54 000 and 27 500 premature deaths can be avoided by a 20 % reduction of global anthropogenic emissions in Europe and the US, respectively. A 20 % reduction of North American anthropogenic emissions avoids a total of ~ 1000 premature deaths in Europe and 25 000 total premature deaths in the US. A 20 % decrease of anthropogenic emissions within the European source region avoids a total of 47 000 premature deaths in Europe. Reducing the east Asian anthropogenic emissions by 20 % avoids ~ 2000 total premature deaths in the US. These results show that the domestic anthropogenic emissions make the largest impacts on premature deaths on a continental scale, while foreign sources make a minor contribution to adverse impacts of air pollution.

Assessment of Aerosol-Radiation (ARI) and Aerosol-Cloud (ACI) Interactions from Dust: Modelled Dust Optical Properties and Remote Sensing Observations

Dust is a natural aerosol with an important influence over the Mediterranean basin from a climatic perspective. WRF-Chem simulations have been evaluated over Europe for an October 2010 dust episode. Three modeling scenarios differ in the inclusion or not of aerosol-radiation-cloud interactions.The evaluation of the aerosol optical depth (AOD) indicates a slight improvement of simulations when evaluated against MODIS when including the aerosol radiative feedbacks (RF). For the and Angstrom exponent (AE), the model tends to underestimate the variability of this variable, and a much more limited improvement when including RF.