upgrade&verification¬e:& evaluation&ofthe&e4suite&(fzpr

Grant agreement n°283576

MACC-‐II Validation Subproject Report

Upgrade verification note: Evaluation of the e-‐suite (fzpr) for the period July 2013 -‐ January 2014

Date: January 2014 Lead Beneficiary: KNMI (#21) Nature: R Dissemination level: PU

File: MACCII_VAL_e-suite_20140131.docx

2 / 29

Work-‐package 82 (VAL, Validation) Deliverable -‐ Title Upgrade verification note:

Evaluation of the e-‐suite (fzpr), for the period July 2013 -‐ January 2014

Nature R Dissemination PU Lead Beneficiary KNMI (#21) Date 31 January 2014 Status Final Authors A. Benedictow and M. Schulz (MetNo), A. Blechschmidt

and A. Richter (IUP-‐UB), V. Huijnen (KNMI), J. Kapsomenakis and C. Zerefos (AA), S. Chabrillat, Y. Christophe, B. Langerock, E. Botek (BIRA-‐IASB), M. Razinger (ECMWF), A. Wagner (DWD)

Editors H.J. Eskes (KNMI), V. Huijnen (KNMI) Contact info@copernicus-‐atmosphere.eu

This document has been produced in the context of the MACC-‐II project (Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate -‐ Interim Implementation). The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7 THEME [SPA.2011.1.5-‐02]) under grant agreement n° 283576. All information in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors view.


3 / 29

Summary The MACC II (Modelling Atmospheric Composition and Climate, www.gmes-‐atmosphere.eu) project is establishing the core global and regional atmospheric environmental service delivered as a component of the European Earth observation programme Copernicus (previously known as GMES, Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). The global MACC near-‐real time (NRT) service provides daily analyses and forecasts of trace gas and aerosol concentrations.

This document contains verification results for the upgrade of the NRT service planned for February 2014. The new model configuration (the e-‐suite) is operated in parallel to the operational NRT service (the o-‐suite) for several months. For more details about the validation approaches and references we refer to the NRT validation reports of MACC-‐II.

Below the main results are summarised from a comparison of the performance of the new e-‐suite run (fzpr, period July 2013 -‐ January 2014), the operational run (o-‐suite) and independent observations. Section 1 provides a brief overview of the changes between the e-‐suite and o-‐suite. Section 2 presents the validation results.

The o-‐suite update discussed in this documents consists of a couple of relatively minor changes, as detailed in section 1. The impact of these changes on the performance is not expected to be very large, and this is reflected by the verification results summarised below and shown in more detail in section 2. Similar results, or improvements (for surface ozone) are found for the e-‐suite. We find a notable difference in polar stratospheric NO2, where the new e-‐suite is an improvement. As a result we can give a positive advice to go ahead with the planned upgrade of the o-‐suite.

Aerosols

As compared to the o-‐suite, an initially lower correlation against Aeronet NRT data is found in July and August 2013, possibly due to spin-‐up time deviations from an optimal state of the model, or because of differences originating from the previous upgrade of the o-‐suite, which took place on 7 October 2013. In September through to November 2013 the two simulations are very similiar as seen in the temporal evaluation of correlation. The same applies also for the 3 day forecast time step (o-‐suite 72-‐96h vs e-‐suite 72-‐96h). The statistics for November 2013 are very similar (maybe a tiny little bit better for the e-‐suite) as seen in the scatterplots against Aeronet AOD observations for the two simulations. In view of the large similarity it is probably not possible (and worth) to try to attribute small differences in aerosol amount and bias against Aeronet to specific changes in the model. No other reasons could be found, which would prevent from recommending the e-‐suite to become o-‐suite.

Hourly dust optical depth (DOD) data from MACCII e-‐suite has been evaluated against 33 AERONET level-‐1.5 stations, and for 10 regions (Western Mediterranean, Central Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean, North Western Maghreb, Sahara, Sahel, Middle East, Subtropical North Atlantic, Tropical North Atlantic and Middle North Atlantic) for the period August 1st to December 31st, 2013. The e-‐suite DOD evaluation shows no significant differences with o-‐suite. It may be emphasized that the correlation in e-‐suite improves slightly in some regions, like the Sahara, the Sahel and Middle East, but, on the contrary, a slight overestimation of DOD is observed in the Sahara and Middle East. The differences between e-‐suite and o-‐suite are small and hardly significant.

Ozone

The comparison with ozone sonde measurements in the free troposphere shows that the e-‐suite has somewhat lower MNM biases in all regions except for the Arctic. Especially in Antarctica, e-‐suite shows better results.


4 / 29

For surface ozone mixing ratios at the GAW, GMD and several EMEP stations, the e-‐suite shows convincing improvements compared to o-‐suite. MNM biases are mostly lower and correlation coefficients higher, except for the stations in the Southern Hemisphere.

It should be noted that the main differences are observed before 7 October 2013, the date of the previous o-‐suite update. The e-‐suite versus o-‐suite differences are small after 7 october, demonstrating the good agreement compared to the current o-‐suite.

CO

For surface CO, compared to GAW station data, e-‐suite shows lower MNM biases and higher correlation coefficients in Asia and no major differences to o-‐suite compared to the surface observations in Europe. For the two Southern Hemispheric stations, the performance of o-‐suite is in parts better.

Tropospheric NO2

Model validation with respect to GOME-‐2 data shows that tropospheric NO2 columns are quite well reproduced by the o-‐suite and e-‐suite, indicating that emission patterns and NOx photochemistry are reasonably represented. However, the o-‐suite and e-‐suite tend to underestimate NO2 columns over land, particularly over East-‐Asia. The latter may result from an underestimation of anthropogenic NOx emissions in the inventories. There are only minor differences between the o-‐suite and e-‐suite.

Formaldehyde

Model results and observations are in good agreement for HCHO with respect to magnitude. There is almost no difference between the o-‐suite and e-‐suite. Satellite values are generally lower than model values for Indonesia where biomass burning and biogenic sources contribute to HCHO emissions. However, this is not the case for North-‐Africa where biomass burning and biogenic sources contribute to HCHO emissions as well. Model values are higher than satellite values for East-‐Asia.

Stratospheric ozone

We find no important change for ozone in the lower stratosphere, i.e. in the region which contributes most to UV absorption. The e-‐suite delivers up to 10% less ozone in the upper stratosphere, which is a good thing.

The validation with ozone balloon soundings also shows that there are no major differences between e-‐suite and o-‐suite.

Stratospheric Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Both e-‐suite and o-‐suite catch the shape of time series of stratospheric NO2 columns well for most of the globe. Nonetheless, the e-‐suite and o-‐suite significantly underestimate the magnitude of the values compared to satellite observations. However, the e-‐suite is closer to satellite observations than o-‐suite at all latitude bands.

A significant difference in stratospheric NOx is found above the South Pole, where the e-‐suite delivers larger concentrations than the o-‐suite by up to 50% in the lower stratosphere. This difference is actually due to some error in the previous upgrade of the o-‐suite, i.e. on 2013-‐10-‐07 when fnyp was upgraded from IFS cycle 37R3 to cycle 38R2: a discontinuity shows up at this date in fnyp, which shows afterwards unusually low values of NOx above the South Pole. These unusually low values are still present 4 months after the date of the upgrade.


5 / 29

1 Configuration of o-‐suite and e-‐suite

Key model information is given on the MACC pre-‐operational data-‐assimilation and forecast run o-‐suite and the new e-‐suite. Table 2.1 provides information on the satellite data used in the o-‐suite.

1.1.1 o-‐suite

The o-‐suite is running under experiment (EXPVER) ‘fnyp’ and is described in Stein et al. (2011) and references therein. Here a summary of the main physics specifications of the current o-‐suite is given.

• The meteorological model is based on IFS version CY38R2, see also http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/technical/model_id/; IFS model resolution is T255L60.

• MOZART version 3.5 is used (Kinnison et al., 2007; Emmons et al., 2011) with a resolution of 1.125°x1.125°.

• Anthropogenic and biogenic emissions are based on the MACCity (Granier et al., 2011) and (climatological) MEGAN emission inventories with scaled CO emissions.

• NRT fire emissions are taken from GFASv1.0 (Kaiser et al. 2012), both for gas-‐phase and aerosol.

• Note that on 7 October 2013 the o-‐suite has been upgraded with resulting in significant modifications to the chemical analysis system.

Table 2.1: Satellite retrievals of reactive gases and aerosol optical depth that are actively assimilated in the o-‐suite.

Instrument Satellite Provider Version Type Status

MLS AURA NASA V2 V3.4

O3 Profiles O3 Profiles

20090901 -‐ 20130106 20130107 -‐

OMI AURA NASA V883 O3 Total column 20090901 -‐

GOME-‐2 Metop-‐A Eumetsat GDP 4.7 O3 Total column 20131007 -‐

SBUV-‐2 NOAA NOAA V8 O3 6 layer profiles O3 21 layer profiles

20090901 -‐20131006 20131007-‐

IASI MetOp-‐A LATMOS/ULB CO Total column 20090901 -‐

MOPITT TERRA NCAR V4 V5

CO Total column CO Total column

20120705 -‐ 20130201 20130129 -‐

OMI AURA KNMI DOMINO

V2.0

NO2 Tropospheric column

20120705 -‐

OMI AURA NASA v003 SO2 Tropospheric column

20120705 -‐

MODIS AQUA / TERRA

NASA Col. 5 Aerosol total optical depth

20090901 -‐


6 / 29

The aerosol model The aerosol model includes 12 prognostic variables, which are 3 bins for sea salt and desert dust, hydrophobic and hydrophilic organic matter and black carbon, sulphate aerosols and its precursor trace gas SO2 (Morcrette et al., 2009). Aerosol fire emissions are based on GFASv1 (Kaiser et al. 2012). A variational bias correction for the MODIS AOD is in place based on the approach used also elsewhere in the IFS (Dee and Uppala, 2009).

1.1.2 e-‐suite

The e-‐suite with experiment ID "fzpr" has been running for the period starting from 1 August 2013 and is now running in near-‐real-‐time. The description of the system is given at: http://www.copernicus-‐atmosphere.eu/oper_info/global_system_changes/cy40r1/

Here a summary of the main physics changes compared to the current o-‐suite is given.

• The meteorological model is based on IFS version CY40R1, which includes amongst others modification of the convection to address diurnal cycle of precipitation and changes to snow albedo.

• Global forecasts of PM10 and PM2.5 are generated

• Improved bias correction for MODIS AOD observations

• Starting from 21 January 2014 the fire emissions have been updated to GFASv1.2

• The background errors have been rescaled by 5%, which leads to a small reduction of the weight given to the observations in the assimilation.

A detailed log file can be found from: http://www.copernicus-‐atmosphere.eu/about/project_structure/global/g_idas/g_idas_2/e-‐suite/


7 / 29

2 Verification results for the e-‐suite "fzpr" and o-‐suite

2.1 Aerosol

The new e-‐suite experiment "fzpr" has been evaluted alongside the o-‐suite until the end of November 2013. The aerosol optical depth comparisons against AERONET are shown in figures 2.1.1 to 2.1.3.

Fig. 2.1.1. Mean maps of AOD@550nm for Sep-‐Nov 2013, for the e-‐suite "fzpr" and o-‐suite.

Fig. 2.1.2. AOD@550nm correlation coefficient o-‐suite and e-‐suite model simulation against Aeronet NRT level 1.5 data for Dec. 2011-‐Nov 2013 (thick red curve); Last forecast day is shown separately (light red curve).


8 / 29

Fig. 2.1.3. Scatter plot of AOD@550nm for the e-‐suite "fzpr" (top) and o-‐suite (bottom) against AERONET ground observations.

Apart from aerosol OD550, we have studied the dust optical depth in the Mediterranean and Sahara regions. We have assumed as Dust optical depth (DOD) as the AERONET AOD coarse mode obtained from the spectral shape of AOD by means of a Spectral Deconvolution Algorithm (SDA, O’Neill et al., 2003).

DOD MACCII e-‐suite and o-‐suite outputs at 06, 09, 12, 15 and 18UTC have been evaluated with near DOD observations from AERONET averaged for these hours (±1.5h) at the 33 AERONET stations. Skill scores have been computed for each station on a daily basis and averaged for the 10 geographical regions. Results are given below


9 / 29

Figure 2.1.4: Map of AERONET level-‐1.5 stations used in this analysis.

DOD MACCII o-‐suite DOD MACCII e-‐suite Region MB FGE RMSE r MB FGE RMSE r n

Western Mediterranean -‐0.03 0.84 0.10 0.50 -‐0.02 0.89 0.11 0.50 2720

Central Mediterranean -‐0.03 0.95 0.18 0.37 -‐0.03 0.98 0.18 0.38 420

Eastern Mediterranean -‐0.02 0.75 0.08 0.53 -‐0.02 0.85 0.08 0.54 2360

Middle North Atlantic -‐0.03 1.09 0.10 0.38 -‐0.04 1.19 0.10 0.41 1494

Subtropical North Atlantic -‐0.01 0.87 0.24 0.45 -‐0.01 0.95 0.24 0.48 456

Tropical North Atlantic 0.00 0.41 0.15 0.63 0.01 0.41 0.16 0.65 337

North Western Maghreb -‐0.01 0.71 0.13 0.42 -‐0.01 0.70 0.13 0.45 895

Sahara 0.08 0.86 0.30 0.33 0.14 0.93 0.31 0.43 526

Sahel -‐0.02 0.51 0.30 0.35 -‐0.01 0.51 0.30 0.38 1455

Middle East 0.05 0.40 0.11 0.72 0.08 0.43 0.14 0.78 2234

Table 2.1.1. The main skill scores, averaged by regions.

Figure 2.1.5. Some representative graphics of the e-‐suite evaluation for the 10 regions.


10 / 29

Figure 2.1.5 (continued). Some representative graphics of the e-‐suite evaluation for the 10 regions.

Note: A detailed analysis has been performed for each station. This information is available if required.


11 / 29

2.2 Tropospheric Ozone

2.2.1 Validation with sonde data in the free troposphere

In the free troposphere, e-‐suite has lower MNM biases except for the Arctic in September and October. In Antarctica in August and September, the MNMB is significantly lower for e-‐suite, see Figure 2.2.2.

Figure 2.2.1: Modified normalized mean bias (%) of ozone of o-‐suite(solid) and e-‐suite (dotted) model runs against aggregated sonde data in the free troposphere in 3 regions.

Figure 2.2.2. O3 partial pressures, sonde (red/green) compared to model (black), for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) over Neumayer station for 24.08.2013.

Free Troposphere 2013

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013

Month

MN

MB

[%]

MACC_osuite_Antarctica

MACC_osuite_NorthernMidlatitudes

MACC_osuite_Arctic

MACC_esuite_Antarctica

MACC_esuite_Arctic

MACC_esuite_NorthernMidlatitudes


12 / 29

Figure 2.2.3: Modified normalized mean bias in % (left) and correlation coefficients (right) of the o-‐suite (red) and e-‐suite (orange) runs compared to observational O3 surface GAW data between September –November 2013

Table 2.2.1: MNM biases in % and correlation coefficients of o-‐suite and e-‐suite for O3

2.2.2 Validation with GAW in-‐situ data

For European stations (HPB, JFJ, ZUG, SON, MCI), e-‐suite (fzpr) shows MNM biases between -‐8 and 35%, while o-‐suite has MNM biases between 4 and 38%; at 4 of 5 stations e-‐suite shows an improvement in MNM bias compared to o-‐suite, see Fig s and 3. Correlation coefficients for e-‐suite are mostly slightly higher, see Fig 2.2.3 and Table 2.2.1.

For the three Asian GAW stations (RYO, YON, MNM), e-‐suite shows a slight reduction of the modelled O3 overestimation with an improvement in MNM biases (for e-‐suite MNM Biases between 5 and 32%, for o-‐suite between 8 and 34%), see Fig. 2.2.6. The correlation shows an improvement for e-‐suite.

For southern hemispheric stations, O3 mixing ratios are generally lower for e-‐suite, which leads to a reduction of the MNM bias for Cape Point station and partly to an underestimation for the other two stations located in the Southern Hemisphere, see time series plot in Fig. 2.2.7 and 2.2.8. MNM biases are between -‐10 and 8 % for e-‐suite and between 20 and 31% for o-‐suite, correlation coefficients, however, are lower for e-‐suite.

Figure 2.2.4: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Sonnblick station between September and November 2013.

O3 September to November 2013

-20

0

20

40

60

HPBJF

JZUG

SONMCI

RYOYON

MNMCVO

CPTUSH

NEU

Station (GAW)

MN

MB

[%]

MACC_osuite(fnyp)

MACC_esuite(fzpr)

Europe Asia

Southern hemispherehemisphere

Cape Verde

O3 September to November 2013

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

HPBJF

JZUG

SONMCI

RYOYON

MNMCVO

CPTUSH

NEU

Station (GAW)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent r

MACC_osuite(fnyp)MACC_esuite(fzpr)

Europe AsiaSouthern hemisphere

Cape Verde

O3 Sep-Nov 2013 HPB JFJ ZUG SON MCI RYO YON MNM CVO CPT USH NEUMNMB MACC_esuite (fzpr) 34.7 -1.0 16.3 8.3 -8.5 5.4 7.8 31.5 18.0 8.3 -10.1 6.0MNMB MACC_osuite (fnyp) 38.1 4.1 21.8 13.2 8.5 8.3 9.2 34.2 20.1 19.5 31.0 25.5R MACC_esuite (fzpr) 0.63 0.59 0.32 0.53 0.55 0.35 0.54 0.75 0.75 0.59 0.50 -0.16R MACC_osuite (fnyp) 0.59 0.54 0.31 0.52 0.58 0.29 0.50 0.69 0.70 0.73 0.66 0.49


13 / 29

Figure 2.2.5: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Monte Cimone station between September and November 2013.

Figure 2.2.6: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Minamitorishima station between September and November 2013.

Figure 2.2.7: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Cape Point station between September and November 2013.


14 / 29

Figure 2.2.8: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Neumayer station between September and November 2013.

2.2.3 Validation with in-‐situ station data (AA)

For the e-‐suite validation, simulated surface O3 concentrations are compared against observed surface O3 at a number of stations listed in Table 2.2.2. The validation results span over the five-‐month period August-‐December 2013. Time-‐series and validation scores are shown in the following figures 2.2.9 -‐ 2.2.14. All the left-‐column figures show the validation with the new model version (e-‐suite, fzpr) and on the right the validation with the previous model version (o-‐suite, fnyp). Figure 2.2.9 shows validation results at Finokalia (Crete) in the eastern Mediterranean. Figure 2.2.10 provides similar information for the US, Figure 2.2.11 for the tropics, Figure 2.2.12 for Lauder (New Zealand) and Figures 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 for the Arctic and Antarctic.

The validation results can be summarized as follows: At Finokalia station both models reproduce well mean surface ozone concentrations (bias≈0%) as well as the day by day variability (correlation between simulated and observed daily surface ozone concentrations r=0.8). Over USA stations both e-‐suite and o-‐suite runs overestimate ozone mixing ratios. However, e-‐suite run shows lower biases than o-‐suite in all USA stations. Over tropical stations (BAR, BER, MLO and SMO) both e-‐suite and o-‐suite runs overestimate ozone mixing ratios. Again e-‐suite shows a better performance in bias than o-‐suite. Correlations between simulated and observed surface ozone concentrations are high for both runs. At Lauder station (New Zealand) e-‐suite reproduces well mean surface ozone concentrations (bias≈0%) while o-‐suite overestimates it by 7 ppb. The e-‐suite is slightly better at reproducing the day by day variability at Lauder. Finally e-‐suite run shows lower biases (in absolute values) also over Arctic and Antarctica stations. To summarize e-‐suite run performers better than o-‐suite over all continents in terms of bias.


15 / 29

Mediterranean

Figure 2.2.9: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr, left) and o-‐suite (fnyp, rigth) compared to Mediterranean stations observed ozone values (blue dots) between August and December 2013

USA

Figure 2.2.10: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr, left) and o-‐suite (fnyp, rigth) compared to USA stations observed ozone values (blue dots) between August and December 2013


16 / 29

Tropics

Figure 2.2.11: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr, left) and o-‐suite (fnyp, rigth) compared to Tropical stations observed ozone values (blue dots) between August and December 2013


17 / 29

Figure 2.2.12: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr, right) and o-‐suite (fnyp, left) compared to Lauder (45.04°S, 169.68°E) observed ozone values (blue dots) between August and December 2013.

Arctic

Figure 2.2.13: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr, left) and o-‐suite (fnyp, rigth) compared to Arctic stations observed ozone values (blue dots) between August and December 2013


18 / 29

Antarctica

Figure 2.2.14: Time series for e-‐suite (fzpr0, right) and o-‐suite (fnyp, left) compared to Antarctica stations observed ozone values (blue dots) between August 2013 and December 2013

Table 2.2.2: Coordinates of stations used in the present validation analysis.

Station Latitude Longitude Altitude (m) Country Summit (SUM) 72.57°N 38.38°W 3266 Greenland Barrow (BRW) 71.32°N 156.61°W 8 Alaska, United States Moody (WKT) 31.32°N 97.33°W 260 Texas, United States Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO)

40.05°N 105.00°W 1584 Colorado, United States

Trinidad Head (THD) 41.05°N 124.15°W 107 California, United States Finokalia (FK) 35.32°N 25.67°E 250 Greece Ragged Point (BAR) 13.17°N 59.46°W 45 Barbados Bermuda (BER) 32.27°N 64.88°W 30 United Kingdom Mauna Loa (MLO) 19.54°N 155.58°W 3397 Hawaii, United States Tutuila (SMOC) 14.23°S 170.56°W 77 American Samoa Lauder (LDR) 45.04°S 169.68°E 370 New Zealand Arrival Heights (ARH) 77.80°S 166.78°W 50 New Zealand, Antarctica South Pole (SPO) 90.00°S 24.80°W 2837 Antarctica


19 / 29

2.3 Carbon monoxide (CO) surface concentrations

For European stations, there is only marginal difference in MNM bias between MACC _e-‐suite and o-‐suite. Both model runs show the same underestimation of CO mixing ratios. Please note that for Zugspitze station, CO observational data is biased due to calibration problems during the evaluation time period. e-‐suite shows slightly higher correlation coefficients than o-‐suite.

For the three Asian GAW stations, e-‐suite corresponds better with the observations and shows lower MNM biases and mostly higher correlation coefficients, see Fig. 2.3.1 and 2.3.4.

For the Southern Hemispheric station Ushuaia, the performance of the both model runs is mostly identical, however, the correlation coefficient is negative for e-‐suite. For Cape point station e-‐suite shows a slightly higher MNM bias and an identical correlation. For Cape Verde station, e-‐suite shows improved results, especially for September, see Fig. 2.3.3.

Figure 2.3.1: Modified normalized mean bias in % of the o-‐suite (red) and e-‐suite (orange) runs compared to observational CO surface GAW data.

Figure 2.3.2: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Jungfraujoch station between September and November2013.

Figure 2.3.3: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Cape Verde station between Septemberand November 2013.

CO September to November 2013

-50.0-40.0-30.0-20.0-10.0

0.010.020.030.040.050.0

HPBJF

JZUG

SONMCI

RYOYON

MNMCVO

CPTUSH

Station (GAW)

MN

MB

[%]

MACC_osuite(fnyp)

MACC_esuite(fzpr)

Europe Asia

Southern hemisphere

Cape Verde

observational data too high

CO September to November 2013

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

HPBJF

JZUG

SONMCI

RYOYON

MNMCVO

CPTUSH

Station (GAW)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent r

MACC_osuite(fnyp)

MACC_esuite(fzpr)

Europe Asia

Southern hemisphere

Cape Verde


20 / 29

Figure 2.3.4: Time series for o-‐suite (left) and e-‐suite (right) compared to GAW observations (blue dots) at Minamitorishima station between September and November 2013.

Table 2.3.1: MNM biases in % and correlation coefficients of o-‐suite and e-‐suite for September to November 2013 for CO.

The scorecard shown in figure 2.3.5 confirms the relatively small changes between o-‐suite and e-‐suite for ozone and CO, with also little dependence on the forecast step.

CO Sep-Nov 2013 HPB JFJ ZUG SON MCI RYO YON MNM CVO CPT USHMACC_esuite (fzpr) -19.6 -16.7 -27.4 -20.6 -12.7 -3.2 -5.2 -1.9 -3.9 26.0 -10.1MACC_osuite (fnyp) -18.8 -17.4 -27.8 -23.0 -13.1 -5.0 -7.2 -4.0 -7.7 19.2 -11.2MACC_esuite (fzpr) 0.61 0.72 0.51 0.62 0.21 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.65 0.42 -0.08MACC_osuite (fnyp) 0.60 0.66 0.46 0.61 0.20 0.66 0.73 0.76 0.56 0.44 0.17


21 / 29

Figure 2.3.5: Scorecard for the comparison of the e-‐suite and o-‐suite performance with respect to GAW station observations of ozone (top part) and CO (bottom part). Shown are the normalised bias (MNMB), fractional gross error (FGE) and correlation for the different GAW stations. Green colors indicate a better performance of the new e-‐suite (fwu0) and pink colors a worse performance. The hatched (densely hatched) areas show datasets with a poor data availability of less than 50% (25%). The horizontal axis is the forecast step (0-‐96h).


22 / 29

2.4 Tropospheric Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Model validation with respect to GOME-‐2 data shows that tropospheric NO2 columns (Figure 2.4.1) are quite well reproduced by the o-‐suite and e-‐suite, indicating that emission patterns and NOx photochemistry are reasonably represented. However, the o-‐suite and e-‐suite tend to underestimate NO2 columns over land, particularly over East-‐Asia. The latter may result from an underestimation of anthropogenic NOx emissions in the inventories. There are only minor differences bewteen the o-‐suite and e-‐suite.

Figure 2.4.1: Time series of average tropospheric NO2 columns [1015 molec cm-‐2] from GOME-‐2 compared to model results for different regions.


23 / 29

2.5 Formaldehyde (HCHO)

Model results and observations are in good agreement for HCHO (see Figure 2.5.1) with respect to magnitude. There is almost no difference between the o-‐suite and e-‐suite. Satellite values are generally lower than model values for Indonesia where biomass burning and biogenic sources contribute to HCHO emissions. However, this is not the case for North-‐Africa where biomass burning and biogenic sources contribute to HCHO emissions as well. Model values are higher than satellite values for East-‐Asia.

Figure 2.5.1: Time series of average tropospheric HCHO columns [1016 molec cm-‐2] from GOME-‐2 compared to model results for different regions.


24 / 29

2.6 Stratospheric ozone evaluation

In the stratosphere the validation with balloon sondes revealed that there are no major differences between e-‐suite (fzpr) and o-‐suite (fnyp), see Figure 2.6.1

Figure 2.6.1: Modified normalized mean bias (%) of ozone of o-‐suite / e-‐suite (dotted line) model runs against aggregated sonde data in the stratosphere.

Quick looks (e.g. by the comparison tool at the stratospheric ozone service – see Fig. 2.6.2) show no difference between the e-‐suite and o-‐suite. Fig. 2.6.3 shows the relative difference as a function of latitude and pressure for 2013-‐12-‐18 12:00 (similar results for other dates). We see that the difference never exceeds 5% between 10 hPa and the tropopause (most important region). In the upper stratosphere the e-‐suite analysis delivers up to 10% less ozone than the o-‐suite analysis. This is a good thing since the validation of o-‐suite against ozonesondes, for period 2009-‐09 to 2012-‐09 (experiment f93i) shows a slight overestimation at all pressures smaller than 20 hPa.

Figure 2.6.2: Examples of stratospheric ozone map by the e-‐suite (left) and o-‐suite (right): 50hPa, 26 January 2014.

Stratosphere 2013

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013

Month

MN

MB

[%]

MACC_osuite_Antarctica

MACC_osuite_NorthernMidlatitudes

MACC_osuite_Arctic

MACC_esuite_Antarctica

MACC_esuite_Arctic

MACC_esuite_NorthernMidlatitudes


25 / 29

Figure 2.6.3: Relative difference of ozone by the o-‐suite and e-‐suite (e-‐o/o) on 2013-‐12-‐18. Left pane: zonally averaged differences; right pane: extrema of the differences encountered on each zonal circle. Green dots show the location of the (PV-‐based) tropopause.

The similarity between o-‐suite and e-‐suite is confirmed by comparisons with ground-‐based observations as provided by the EU project NORS. Fig. 2.6.4 shows the stratospheric column (25-‐60km) above Ny-‐Alesund as a function of time. The partial column gives much more weight to the lower stratosphere, and the e-‐suite results are nearly undistinguishable from the o-‐suite results. The next VAL 3-‐monthly report will discuss the systematic bias found in both cases with the ground-‐based MWR instrument.

Figure 2.6.4: Time series of Ozone stratospheric columns observed by the MWR instrument above Ny Alesund, and corresponding results by o-‐suite (full red line) and e-‐suite (dashed red line). Comparison provided by EU FP7 project NORS.


26 / 29

2.7 Stratospheric Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Both runs catch the shape of time series of stratospheric NO2 columns (see Figure 3) well. Nonetheless, the e-‐suite and o-‐suite significantly underestimate the magnitude of the values compared to satellite observations. However, e-‐suite results are closer to satellite observations than o-‐suite results at all latitude bands.

Figure 2.7.1: Time series of average stratospheric NO2 columns [1015 molec cm-‐2] from GOME-‐2 compared to model results for different latitude bands.


27 / 29

Figure 2.7.2: Examples of stratospheric map of the NOx mass mixing ratio by the e-‐suite (left) and o-‐suite (right): 50hPa, 26 January 2014.

Figure 2.7.3: NOx mass mixing ratio by the o-‐suite at 50hPa on 6, 7 and 8 October 2013

Quick looks show no important difference between the NOx delivered by the e-‐suite and the o-‐suite in the lower stratosphere, except above the South Pole where an unexpectedly large difference is found: fig. 2.7.2 shows that at 50 hPa for the end of January, the e-‐suite delivers max 3.1 ppbm, i.e. 35% more NOx than the 2.3 ppbm in the o-‐suite analysis.

Exploring for other dates and projections, we find that this difference appeared on 2013-‐10-‐07, i.e. when the o-‐suite was upgraded from the previous e-‐suite (fwu0). Fig. 2.7.3 shows that a discontinuity appears on that date in the o-‐suite while there is no such discontinuity in the e-‐suite.

The time-‐series of NOx mmr at 50 hPa by the consolidated o-‐suite (i.e. f93i+fnyp) confirms that for Antarctic spring post-‐20131007, the low values found by fnyp above the South Pole are quite unusual (fig.2.7.4).


28 / 29

Figure 2.7.4: NOx mass mixing ratio by the e-‐suite at 50hPa on 6, 7 and 8 October 2013

Figure 2.7.5: Time-‐latitude plot of NOx mass mixing ratio by the o-‐suite at 50hPa. The oval in brown shows the January 2011 period discussed below; the oval in cyan shows the unusually low values above the South Pole during Antarctic Spring 2013.

It is unfortunately not possible to compare directly the model output with (vertically resolved) observations of NO2, because the observations of NO and NO2 by ACE-‐FTS are not available after 2012-‐08. So we have evaluated the o-‐suite output for January 2011 (fig. 2.7.6). This shows that the larger values for that year are correct (in the lower stratosphere), so the lower values for January 2014 are most probably underestimated.


29 / 29

Figure 2.7.6: Vertical profile of NOx mass mixing ratio averaged in latitude band 90°S-‐60°S for 2011-‐01, as observed by ACE-‐FTS (dots) and -‐ after interpolation to these obs -‐ delivered by the o-‐suite (i.e. f93i ; red line) and BASCOE offline experiment (eb0135A; note NO and NO2 are not constrained).

upgrade&verification¬e:& evaluation&ofthe&e4suite&(fzpr

Documents