Upgrade verification note for the CAMS real-time global atmospheric composition service
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ECMWF COPERNICUS REPORT
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Upgrade verification note for the
CAMS real-time global
atmospheric composition service
Evaluation of the e-suite for the
CAMS 47R2 upgrade of 18 May 2021
Issued by: KNMI
Date: 11 May 2021
Ref: CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite
This document has been produced in the context of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS). The activities leading to these results have been contracted by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, operator of CAMS on behalf of the European Union (Delegation Agreement signed on 11/11/2014). 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 and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors view.
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Upgrade verification note for the CAMS
real-time global
atmospheric composition service
Evaluation of the e-suite for the
CAMS 47R2 upgrade of 18 May 2021
AUTHORS:
H. J. Eskes (KNMI), S. Basart (BSC), A. Benedictow (MetNo), Y. Bennouna (CNRS-LA),
A.-M. Blechschmidt (IUP-UB), Q. Errera (BIRA-IASB), K. M. Hansen (AU),
J. Kapsomenakis (AA), B. Langerock (BIRA-IASB), A. Richter (IUP-UB),
N. Sudarchikova (MPG), M. Schulz (METNO), C. Zerefos (AA)
REPORT OF THE COPERNICUS ATMOSPHERE MONITORING SERVICE,
VALIDATION SUBPROJECT.
CITATION:
Eskes, H. J., S. Basart, A. Benedictow, Y. Bennouna, A.-M. Blechschmidt, Q. Errera, K. M.
Hansen, J. Kapsomenakis, B. Langerock, A. Richter, N. Sudarchikova, M. Schulz, C.
Zerefos, Upgrade verification note for the CAMS real-time global atmospheric
composition service: Evaluation of the e-suite for the CAMS 47R2 upgrade of 18 May
2021, Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) report,
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite.pdf, May 2021, doi: 10.24380/1ef3-gq26.
STATUS:
Version 1.0, final
DATE:
11 May 2021
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 3 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Executive Summary The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS, http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu) is a component of the European Earth Observation programme Copernicus. The CAMS global near-real time (NRT) service provides daily analyses and forecasts of reactive trace gases, greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations. The CAMS service includes an activity (CAMS-84) dedicated to the validation of the service products. The latest validation results for the CAMS-global near-real time service (the o-suite) products can be found in Schulz et al. (2020) and the activity is described in Eskes et al. (2015). The observational datasets used for this validation are described in Eskes et al. (2021). These validation reports and the verification websites can be found at http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/user- support/validation/verification-global-services. Before each upgrade, the new model and assimilation configuration is operated in parallel (the e- suite) to the operational NRT service (the o-suite, e.g., CY47R1) for about half a year. For the 18 May 2021 upgrade to CY47R2, the e-suite run has experiment id "0075", with class=mc, and is available from 5 January 2021 onwards, so there are only a few months of data in the wintertime available to the evaluation. The corresponding control run, without the assimilation of the atmospheric composition satellite data, has experiment id "hig6", class =rd. The GHG delayed mode analysis and forecast runs are not evaluated (no e-suite data available). Below a set of quick-look validation results are presented from a comparison of the performance of the e-suite runs with the operational run (o-suite) and independent observations. The main conclusions are listed below, and the evidence for these findings is presented in section 2 in the form of a series of plots comparing e-suite, o-suite and independent observations. The o-suite and e-suite system changes are discussed in section 1. Main conclusions on the performance of the e-suite The upgrade of the CAMS global system of May 2021 (CY47R2) involves only minor model changes (listed in section 1) which are reflected in the validation results presented. Overall, the quality of the e-suite is very comparable to the o-suite. Four small improvements and two small degradations are reported for the e-suite and no major degradation was observed for any specific species or regions. Based on these findings we can give a positive advice for the e-suite implementation. The scorecard below summarises the results. Global Aerosol The comparison between o-suite and e-suite and the respective control simulations show very similar results for the global aerosol properties (section 2.1), except a very small decrease in black carbon optical depth going from the o-suite to the e-suite (-8%). CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 4 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Property Rel. Property Rel.
score score
Global AOD n CO surface n
Ångstrøm exponent n CO profiles (aircraft) n
Dust AOD n CO columns (satellite, FTIR) +
Dust PM10 Mediterranean n Tropospheric NO2 column -
Surface PM10, Europe and US n HCHO column n
Surface PM2.5, Europe and US n Surface ozone, Arctic n
Ozone, free troposphere n Surface ozone, Midlatitude +
Ozone stratospheric profile n Surface ozone, Antarctic -
Ozone column + Surface ozone, Europe +
Table S1. Scorecard for the relative performance of the e-suite versus the performance of the o-suite
against independent observations. Meaning of the “relative score” symbols:
++ e-suite performs significantly better than the o-suite;
+ e-suite shows small improvements;
n (neutral) no significant difference between o-suite and e-suite;
- score is somewhat degraded in the e-suite;
-- e-suite performs significantly worse than the o-suite.
Dust and aerosol evaluation over North Africa, the Middle East and Europe
The e-suite and o-suite are showing nearly identical results for AOD/DOD in North Africa, the Middle
East and Europe, compared to surface remote sensing AOD observations from AERONET. The same
holds for PM2.5/PM10 in Europe, compared to EEA-EIONET surface observations (section 2.2).
Tropospheric ozone (O3)
Ozone in-situ surface concentrations have been compared with NOAA ESRL stations (Section 2.3)
and European Airbase observations (Section 2.4). For most regions, the USA, Europe and Asia,
Southern Hemisphere, Arctic, the e-suite and o-suite and the respective control runs show nearly
identical biases. For the Antarctic, there is some indication of a slightly increased negative bias. The
e-suite, however, reduces somewhat the positive offset observed in the o-suite over central
European Airbase stations, but the e-control and control runs are nearly identical.
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 5 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service For ozone comparisons against IAGOS aircraft measurements, both profile and cruise data comparisons have been carried out (Section 2.5). The results from the e-suite (0075) and o-suite (0001) for both analysis and forecast are very similar for the different regions sampled. Only a slight difference is found in the surface layer over Europe where the e-suite provides slightly better performance (MNMB) than the o-suite, and conversely over India. Surface ozone mixing ratios predicted with the 0075 e-suite was evaluated against measurements from two sites within the Arctic: Svalbard and the Villum Research Station (Greenland) from 5 January - 31 March 2021 (Section 2.6). Differences between the e-suite and the o-suite are very small, with a slightly lower bias for the e-suite (0.04-0.05) than for the o-suite (0.06-0.07), whereas the correlations are slightly higher for the o-suite (0.21-0.29) than for the e-suite (0.18-0.26). The comparisons with METOP-B IASI ozone shows that model configurations are in good agreement with the observations. The e-suite shows small improvements compared to the o-suite, which is reflected in the regional and temporal bias reduction (Section 2.7). Tropospheric Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide surface concentrations have been compared with European Airbase surface observations (Section 2.8). There are no significant changes between e-suite and o-suite, or e- control and o-control in terms of both MNMBs and correlations between modelled and observed values. For CO, comparisons against IAGOS aircraft observations of profile and cruise data have been carried out (Section 2.9). No notable difference is found in the performance from the e-suite (0075) and o-suite (0001) for both analysis and forecast for the different regions sampled. However, the e- suite presents slightly worse performance (MNMB) than the o-suite in the surface over Eastern Asia for the month of February and conversely in March. A slight difference is also found at the surface in February over India with slightly better performance (MNMB) for the e-suite. Over Western Africa slight differences are found in both surface and free troposphere with a smaller bias from the e-suite at the surface and conversely in the free troposphere. The CO total columns from the o-suite, control run and e-suite have been compared to MOPITT V8 (thermal infrared radiances) and IASI satellite retrievals (section 2.10). In general, both model runs are in relatively good agreement with the MOPITT observations and almost equal in most of the regions. The e-suite shows small improvements compared to the o-suite, reflected in the slightly smaller negative bias, especially over the Southern Hemisphere. Tropospheric CO total, tropospheric and stratospheric columns were compared against NDACC FTIR (section 2.11). Overall, the relative bias against FTIR observations of the e-suite did not change compared to the o-suite. Tropospheric Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) The e-suite and o-suite have been compared against Sentinel-5P TROPOMI NO2 observations (Section 2.12). Time series comparisons show that the e-suite produces higher NO2 and compares worse than the o-suite to TROPOMI retrievals. All model runs are positively biased compared to TROPOMI IUP-UB retrievals. Differences between the e-suite and e-suite control are relatively small CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 6 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service and only apparent for East-Asia and North-Africa for Jan 2021. The same is true when comparing to the operational offline product, with the exception for the regions over Africa, where negative biases are found. Map-based comparisons show positive biases over emission hotspots apart from a few exceptions. There are only small differences in general between e-suite and e-suite control. Comparison with the Cabauw Maxdoas NDACC data (Section 2.13) did not reveal a significant difference between performance of the e-suite and o-suite run. Formaldehyde (HCHO) Regional time series comparisons and global maps (Section 2.14) against TROPOMI HCHO satellite observations show very similar values for the e-suite, e-suite control and o-suite and differences to TROPOMI are small. Global map comparisons for March 2021 show positive differences (retrievals larger than simulations) over South America and Northern Australia for all model runs, negative differences are found over South Africa and South Asia. Comparison with the Cabauw and De Bilt Maxdoas NDACC data did not reveal a significant difference between the performance of the 47R2 e-suite and 47R1 o-suite run (Section 2.14). Stratospheric ozone Ozone concentrations in the stratosphere for the Cy47R2 experiments have been compared with satellite observations from MLS V4.2 offline and OMPS-LP v2.5 and shows no significant changes in performance (Section 2.15). The stratospheric partial column comparison against NDACC LIDAR and UVVIS ZENITH shows no change in performance (Section 2.16). CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 7 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Table of Contents 1. Description of the o-suite and e-suite 9 1.1 o-suite: model and data assimilation aspects........................................................................... 9 1.2 o-suite control ....................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 High-resolution CO2 and CH4 forecasts and delayed-mode analyses ....................................... 12 1.4 e-suite ................................................................................................................................... 13 2. Upgrade evaluation results: e-suite versus o-suite 14 2.1 Global aerosol evaluation ...................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Dust and aerosol evaluation over North Africa, the Middle East and Europe ......................... 18 2.3 Verification with ESRL-GMD surface ozone observations ....................................................... 22 2.4 Verification of surface ozone in Europe ................................................................................. 24 2.5 Verification with IAGOS ozone observations .......................................................................... 25 2.6 Verification with ozone surface data in the Arctic .................................................................. 31 2.7 Ozone validation with IASI satellite observations .................................................................. 32 2.8 CO validation with European Airbase Surface Observations................................................... 34 2.9 CO validation with IAGOS Aircraft observations..................................................................... 36 2.10 Comparisons with MOPITTv8 and IASI CO data .................................................................... 42 2.11 CO validation with NDACC and TCCON surface remote-sensing observations....................... 45 2.12 Tropospheric nitrogen dioxide comparisons with TROPOMI ................................................ 46 2.13 Tropospheric nitrogen dioxide comparisons with MAXDOAS ............................................... 48 2.14 Formaldehyde (HCHO) ......................................................................................................... 49 2.15 Stratospheric ozone: Comparison with satellite observations .............................................. 52 2.16 Stratospheric ozone: Comparison with NDACC observations ............................................... 56 3. References 57 Annex 1: Acknowledgements for measurements used 60 CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 8 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
1. Description of the o-suite and e-suite
Below a short model description is given on both the CAMS o-suite operational data-assimilation
and forecast run and the new e-suite.
1.1 o-suite: model and data assimilation aspects
This section provides information on the CAMS global data-assimilation and forecast operational
configuration (the CAMS o-suite). The dates of the last upgrade are listed in Table 1.1. Table 1.2
provides information on the satellite data used in the o-suite. Further details on the model runs and
their data usage can be found at http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/documentation-global-systems.
The o-suite consists of the IFS-CB05 chemistry combined with the CAMS bulk aerosol model. The
chemistry is described in Flemming et al. (2015) and Flemming et al. (2017), aerosol is described in
Morcrette et al. (2009). The forecast length is 120 h. The o-suite data is stored under expver ‘0001’
of class ‘MC’. On 21 June 2016 the model horizontal resolution has seen an upgrade from T255 to
T511, and forecasts are produced twice per day.
A short summary of the main model specifications:
• The modified CB05 tropospheric chemistry is used (Williams et al., 2013), originally taken
from the TM5 chemistry transport model (Huijnen et al., 2010)
• Stratospheric ozone during the forecast is computed from the Cariolle scheme (Cariolle and
Teyssèdre, 2007) as already available in IFS, while stratospheric NOx is constrained through a
climatological ratio of HNO3/O3 at 10 hPa.
• Monthly mean dry deposition velocities are based on the SUMO model provided by the
MOCAGE team.
• Data assimilation is described in Inness et al. (2015) and Benedetti et al. (2009) for chemical
trace gases and aerosol, respectively. Satellite data assimilated is listed in Table 2.2 and Fig.
2.1.
• Anthropogenic and biogenic emissions are based on MACCity (Granier et al., 2011) and a
climatology of the MEGAN-MACC emission inventories (Sindelarova et al., 2014).
Anthropogenic emissions changed to CAMS_GLOB v2.1 with the July 2019 update.
• NRT fire emissions are taken from GFASv1.2 (Kaiser et al. 2012).
Table 1.1: Overview of the operational model runs used as reference in this validation report.
Forecast Exp. ID Brief description Upgrades (e-suite ID) Cycle
system
O-suite 0001 Operational CAMS DA/FC run 20201006-present 47R1
Control hdir Control forecast run without DA 20201006-present 47R1
GHG run hd7v Tco399L137 NRT CO2, CH4 20201101-present 47R1
analyses (~25km)
he9h High resolution Tco1279 (~9km) 20201101-present 47R1
NRT CO2, CH4 forecast
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 9 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Table 1.2: Satellite retrievals of reactive gases and aerosol optical depth that are actively assimilated
in the o-suite in Cy47R1.
Instrument Satellite Provider Version Type Status
MLS AURA NASA V4 O3 Profiles 20130107 -
OMI AURA NASA V883 O3 Total column 20090901 -
GOME-2 Metop-A Eumetsat GDP 4.8 O3 Total column 20131007 - 20181231
GOME-2 Metop-B Eumetsat GDP 4.8 O3 Total column 20140512 -
GOME-2 Metop-C Eumetsat GDP 4.9 O3 Total column 20200505 -
SBUV-2 NOAA-19 NOAA V8 O3 21 layer profiles 20121007 - 20201005
OMPS Suomi-NPP NOAA / O3 13-layer profiles 20170124 – 20190409
EUMETSAT 20201006-
OMPS NOAA-20 NOAA / O3 13 layer profiles 20201006-20201215
EUMETSAT
TROPOMI Sentinel-5P ESA O3 column 20181204-
IASI MetOp-A LATMOS/ULB - CO Total column 20090901 - 20180621
Eumetsat 20180622 - 20191118
IASI MetOp-B LATMOS/ULB - CO Total column 20140918 - 20180621
Eumetsat 20180622 -
IASI MetOp-C Eumetsat CO total column 20191119 -
MOPITT TERRA NCAR V5-TIR CO Total column 20130129 -
V7-TIR 20160124 - 20180626
V7-TIR 20180626
Lance
V8-TIR 20190702
OMI AURA KNMI DOMINO NO2 Tropospheric 20120705 -
V2.0 column
GOME-2 MetOp-A Eumetsat GDP 4.8 NO2 Tropospheric 20180626 - 20200504
column
GOME-2 MetOp-B Eumetsat GDP 4.8 NO2 Tropospheric 20180626 -
column
GOME-2 MetOp-C Eumetsat GDP 4.9 NO2 Tropospheric 20200505-
column
GOME-2 MetOp-A Eumetsat GDP 4.8 SO2 Total column 20150902 -
GOME-2 MetOp-B Eumetsat GDP 4.8 SO2 Total column 20150902-20200414
GOME-2 MetOp-C Eumetsat GDP 4.9 SO2 Total column 20200505-
MODIS AQUA / NASA Col. 5 Aerosol total 20090901 -
TERRA Deep Blue optical depth, 20150902 -
Col. 6, 6.1 fire radiative power 20170124 -
PMAp METOP-A EUMETSAT AOD 20170124 -
METOP-B 20170926 -
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 10 of 64Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Figure 2.1: Satellite observation usage in the real-time analysis, for ozone, CO, aerosol AOD and
NO2, from October 2014 onwards. Top rows (in green): products assimilated using averaging
kernels. Sentinel-5P TROPOMI ozone is assimilated since Dec. 2018 and other products from
TROPOMI are monitored.
The aerosol model includes 14 prognostic variables (Remy et al., 2019).
• 3 size bins each for sea-salt and desert dust
• 2 bins (hydrophibic and hydrophobic) each for organic matter and black carbon
• 1 bin for sulphate
• 2 bins (fine and coarse) for nitrate (New since 46R1)
• 1 bin for ammonium (New since 46R1)
The SO2 precursor for sulphate aerosol no longer exists as a separate prognostic in the aerosol
scheme, which since 46R1 couples directly to the SO2 in the chemistry scheme instead. Likewise, the
precursors for the new nitrate and ammonium aerosol (nitric acid and ammonia) are also part of the
chemistry scheme rather than the aerosol scheme.
Aerosol total mass is constrained by the assimilation of MODIS and PMAp AOD (Benedetti et al.
2009). A variational bias correction is currently applied for the PMAp AOD based on the approach
used also elsewhere in the IFS (Dee and Uppala, 2009).
A history of updates of the o-suite is documented in earlier MACC-VAL and CAMS reports and can
be found at https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/node/326. This includes a list with changes
concerning the assimilation system. The CAMS o-suite system is upgraded regularly, following
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 11 of 64Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service updates to the ECMWF meteorological model as well as CAMS-specific updates such as changes in chemical data assimilation. The last major upgrade of the CAMS global system is based on IFS version cy47r1_CAMS. For the aerosol and reactive trace gas components the upgrade took place on 6 October 2020. For the greenhouse gases the upgrade to 47R1 took place on 1 November 2020. see https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cycle-47r1 or https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/COPSRV/Current+global+production+suites. The validation for this 47r1 upgrade is described in Eskes et al. 2020: https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2020-10/CAMS84_2018SC2_D3.2.1- 202009_esuite.pdf The meteorological changes can be found on the ECMWF-IFS CY47R1 page, https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/COPSRV/Implementation+of+IFS+cycle+47r1. 1.2 o-suite control The control run (relevant expver = hdir since 06/10/2020) applies the same model settings as the o- suite cy47r1, except that data assimilation is not switched on. The meteorology in the control run is initialized with the meteorological fields from the o-suite. 1.3 High-resolution CO2 and CH4 forecasts and delayed-mode analyses The pre-operational forecasts of CO2 and CH4 use an independent setup of the IFS at a resolution of TL1279, i.e. ~16 km horizontal, and with 137 levels. This system runs in real time and does not apply data assimilation for the greenhouse gases. The land vegetation fluxes for CO2 are modelled on-line by the CTESSEL carbon module (Boussetta et al., 2013). A biogenic flux adjustment scheme is used in order to reduce large-scale biases in the net ecosystem fluxes (Agusti-Panareda, 2015). The anthropogenic fluxes are based on the annual mean EDGARv4.2 inventory using the most recent year available (i.e. 2008) with estimated and climatological trends to extrapolate to the current year. The fire fluxes are from GFAS (Kaiser et al., 2012). Methane fluxes are prescribed in the IFS using inventory and climatological data sets, consistent with those used as prior information in the CH4 flux inversions from Bergamaschi et al. (2009). The anthropogenic fluxes are from the EDGAR 4.2 database (Janssens-Maenhout et al, 2012) valid for the year 2008. The biomass burning emissions are from GFAS v1.2 (Kaiser et al., 2012). The high-resolution forecast experiments also included a linear CO scheme (Massart et al., 2015). The greenhouse gas configurations are not discussed in this report because there is no e-suite configuration available. Readers are referred to the latest validation report (Sudarchikova et al., 2021) and the 47R1 e-suite report (Eskes et al. 2020). CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 12 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
1.4 e-suite
The change of the CAMS system to cycle 47R2 is planned to be implemented on 18 May 2021 for
the aerosol and reactive trace gas components.
Details of the upgrade are provided on:
https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/COPSRV/Implementation+of+IFS+cycle+47r2.
The e-suite data is available from ECMWF MARS under class=mc, expver=0075, and is evaluated
from 5 January 2021, and is compared with the 2021 o-suite described above.
The e-suite control run data is available from ECMWF MARS under class=rd, expver=hig6.
Meteorological content of the new cycle:
The meteorological changes can be found on the ECMWF-IFS CY47R2 page,
https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/FCST/Implementation+of+IFS+cycle+47R2.
Atmospheric composition content of the new cycle:
Assimilation:
• No changes
Observations:
• No changes compared to the observations used in 47R1.
Emissions:
• Reduced volcanic outgassing of SO2 from certain volcanoes based on recent observations.
• Implemented cap on anthropogenic primary organic matter (OM) emissions to reduce
excesses in highly polluted regions.
• Increased numerical precision in prescribed emission fields to remove artefacts.
Other model changes:
• Numerical improvements to the aerosol and chemistry schemes to accommodate running
the forecasts in single precision as noted above.
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 13 of 64Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2. Upgrade evaluation results: e-suite versus o-suite 2.1 Global aerosol evaluation Figure 2.1.1: February 2021 average fields of AOD (upper row), black carbon optical depth (middle row) and dust optical depth (lowest row) for o-suite (left) and e-suite (experiment 0075, right). None of the AOD fields has changed to any notable amount. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 14 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.1.2: February 2021 average fields of nitrate (upper row), organics (middle row) and sulphate optical depth (lowest row) for o-suite (left) and e-suite (experiment 0075, right). CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 15 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.1.3: February 2021 average fields of sea salt optical depth for o-suite (left) and e-suite (experiment 0075, right). Figure 2.1.4: February 2021 evaluation against global Aeronet v3 level1.5 AOD (OD550_AER, upper row), for o-suite (left) and e-suite (experiment 0075; right) and Angstrøm exponent (ANG4487_AER, lower row). The scores (bias (NMB+MNMB), RMS, correlation (R), fraction of simulated data within factor 2 (Fact2)) for AOD and Ångstrøm exponent are almost equal. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 16 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Table 2.1.1. Mean global total and speciated AOD and surface PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations [µg
m-3] in the o-suite, o-suite control (CNTRL, experiment HDIR), e-suite (experiment 0075) and e-suite
control (E-CNTRL, experiment HIG6) for the February 2021 period. The right columns show the
relative change between o-suite and e-suite and the respective control simulations.
O-SUITE E-SUITE CNTRL E-CNTRL E-SUITE/ E-CNTRL/
O-SUITE CNTRL
AOD@550 0.160 0.159 0.090 0.090 +0% +0%
BC-OD@550 0.0049 0.0045 0.0023 0.0023 -8% +0%
Dust-OD@550 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 +0% +0%
NO3-OD@550 0.0049 0.0048 0.0036 0.0035 -1% -1%
OA-OD@550 0.037 0.037 0.019 0.018 +0% -1%
SO4-OD@550 0.064 0.063 0.016 0.016 +0% +0%
SS-OD@550 0.040 0.040 0.037 0.037 +0% +0%
PM2.5 12.73 12.68 11.63 11.59 +0% +0%
PM10 26.62 26.53 25.11 25.04 +0% +0%
Table 2.1.2. MNMB and spatial correlation R of AOD and surface PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations
[µg m-3] in the o-suite, o-suite control (CNTRL, experiment HDIR), e-suite (experiment
ECMWF_ESUITE_0075) and e-suite control (E-CNTRL, experiment ECMWF_ESUITE_CNTRL (HIG6) )
for the February 2021 period. The values correspond to figure 2.1.2. Data are collocated on daily
basis before computing the statistics.
MNMB [%] O-SUITE E-SUITE CNTRL E-CNTRL
AOD@550 +22.8 +22.3 -36.1 -37.1
ANG4487 +38.1 +38.3 +23.2 +23.0
PM2.5 -4.7 -5.2 -32 -32
PM10 -11.8 -12.5 -36.2 -36.5
R O-SUITE E-SUITE CNTRL E-CNTRL
AOD@550 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79
ANG4487 0.57 0.57 0.63 0.63
PM2.5 0.77 0.75 0.81 0.80
PM10 0.71 0.69 0.76 0.75
CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 17 of 64Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.2 Dust and aerosol evaluation over North Africa, the Middle East and Europe Figure 2.2.1. Dust AOD skill scores (correlation coefficient, MB, RMSE and MNMB) for 24-hour forecasts of CAMS o-suite (left column), e-suite (expid 0075, central column) and e-suite control (expid hig6, right column). Dust-filtered AOD at 550 nm from AERONET direct sun Version 3 Level 1.5 is the reference. Scores obtained using 3-hourly pairs for the period 5th January to 22nd March 2021. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 18 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.2.2. Total AOD skill scores (correlation coefficient, MB, RMSE and MNMB) for 24-hour forecasts of CAMS o-suite (left column), e-suite (expid 0075, central column) and e-suite control (expid hig6, right column). AOD at 550 nm from AERONET direct sun Version 3 Level 1.5 is the reference. Scores obtained using 3-hourly pairs for the period 5th January to 22nd March 2021. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 19 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.2.3. PM2.5 skill scores (correlation coefficient, MB, RMSE and MNMB) for 24-hour forecasts of CAMS o-suite (left column), e-suite (expid 0075, central column) and e-suite control (expid hig6, right column) for the study period. PM2.5 from EEA-EIONET NRT dataset is the reference. Scores obtained using 3-hourly pairs for the period 5th January to 22nd March 2021. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 20 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.2.3. PM10 skill scores (correlation coefficient, MB, RMSE and MNMB) for 24-hour forecasts of CAMS o-suite (left column), e-suite (expid 0075, central column) and e-suite control (expid hig6, right column) for the study period. PM2.5 from EEA-EIONET NRT dataset is the reference. Scores obtained using 3-hourly pairs for the period 5th January to 22nd March 2021. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 21 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.3 Verification with ESRL-GMD surface ozone observations Fig. 2.3.1. Comparisons with ESRL surface observations: Bias (MNMB, left) and correlation coefficient (right) of o-suite (red, solid), e-suite (red, dashed) and control (blue, solid) and e-control (blue, dashed) for the period 4 January 2021 -31 March 2021. Overall e-suite and o-suite behave similarly. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 22 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.3.2. Two examples of comparisons with NOAA ESRL surface observations: Time series for the USA Table Mountain ESRL station and the tropical Mauna Loa station. Red: o-suite; red-dash: e- suite; blue: o-suite control run; blue-dash: e-suite control run. Overall e-suite and o-suite behave very similar and can hardly be distinguishes. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 23 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.4 Verification of surface ozone in Europe Fig. 2.4.1. Comparisons with Airbase surface ozone. Spatial distribution of e-suite modified normalised mean bias (MNMB) in % (left) and the difference between e-suite and o-suite MNMB (right), during the period: 4 January-31 March 2021 (1st row). The e-suite reduces somewhat the positive offset observed in the o-suite over central European stations. Spatial distribution of e-suite correlation coefficient [r] (left) and the difference between e-suite and o-suite explained variance [%] (right) data during the periods: 4 January-31 March 2021 (2nd row). Over most stations there are no significant changes between e-suite and o-suite in terms of correlations between modelled and observed values. Fig. 2.4.2. As 2.4.3, but for the control runs. There are no significant changes between e-control run and control run in terms of both MNMBs and correlations between modelled and observed values. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 24 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.5 Verification with IAGOS ozone observations Figure 2.5.1: Time series of the bias (relative differences) in the daily profiles of ozone at Frankfurt between 5 January and 31 March 2021, for the analysis from the e-suite on the top panel and the analysis from the o-suite on the bottom panel. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 25 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.5.2: Time series of the bias (relative differences) in the daily profiles of ozone at Frankfurt between 5 January and 31 March 2021, for the one day forecast from the e-suite on the top panel and the one day forecast from the o-suite on the bottom panel. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 26 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.5.3: Time series of monthly MNMB from e-suite analysis (light red, empty circles) and o- suite analysis (dark red, filled circle) for free tropospheric ozone between 5 January and 31 March 2021 in 7 regions (Top left: Europe (only Frankfurt airport), second row right: North America, second row left: Eastern Asia, middle right: India, third row left: Western Africa, third row right: South Africa, bottom left: Middle East). The histogram bars indicate the number of profiles (i.e. layer values) based on available observations. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 27 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.5.4: Time series of monthly MNMB from e-suite analysis (light red, empty circles) and o- suite analysis (dark red, filled circle) for surface ozone between 5 January and 31 March 2021 in 7 regions (Top left: Europe (only Frankfurt airport), second row right: North America, second row left: Eastern Asia, middle right: India, third row left: Western Africa, third row right: South Africa, bottom left: Middle East). The histogram bars indicate the number of profiles (i.e., layer values) based on the available observations. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 28 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.5.5: Global maps of gridded averages (5°x5°) for ozone comparison with IAGOS cruise data for the period 5 January – 31 March 2021. From left to right, first row: IAGOS ozone (in ppbv) and air pressure (in hPa). Second row: ozone from the analysis of the CAMS e-suite (in ppbv) and associated relative differences (in %) with respect to IAGOS. Third, fourth and fifth rows: same as second row for the o-suite analysis, e-suite one day forecast, and o-suite one day forecast respectively. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 29 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure. 2.5.5: Continued. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 30 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.6 Verification with ozone surface data in the Arctic Fig. 2.6.1: Surface ozone mixing ratios at Svalbard (top), and the Villum Research Station (Bottom) from January – March 2021 for the o-suite (red), for the e-suite (blue) and for the e-suite control (magenta). The measured concentrations in March are dominated by ozone depletion events that arise due to halogen chemistry, which is not represented by the CAMS model. Apart from this the models predict the measured levels very well and the differences are small. The bias is slightly lower for the e-suite. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 31 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.7 Ozone validation with IASI satellite observations Fig. 2.7.1: IASI Metop-B O3 total column (daytime), in Dobson units (DU), as a function of latitude and time (top) for January-February 2021. Relative difference (in %) with CAMS o-suite (left), with e- suite (middle) and with the control run (right side). CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 32 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.7.2: Map of IASI METOP-B O3 total column (DU) for January and February 2021 and relative difference (in %) with CAMS e-suite (left side), with control hig6 (middle) and with o-suite (right side). The configurations are in good agreement with the observations. The e-suite shows small improvements compared to o-suite configuration, which is reflected in the regional and temporal bias reduction. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 33 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.8 CO validation with European Airbase Surface Observations Fig. 2.8.1. Comparisons with Airbase surface carbon monoxide. Spatial distribution of e-suite modified normalised mean bias (MNMB) in % (left) and the difference between e-suite and o-suite MNMB (right), during the period: 4 January-31 March 2021 (1st row). The e-suite reduces the positive offset observed in the o-suite over central European stations. Spatial distribution of e-suite correlation coefficient [r] (left) and the difference between e-suite and o-suite explained variance [%] (right) data during the periods: 4 January-31 March 2021 (2nd row). There are no significant changes between e-suite and o-suite in terms of both MNMBs and corelations between modelled and observed values. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 34 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.8.2. Same as 2.8.1, but for the control runs. There are no significant changes between e- control and control in terms of both MNMBs and corelations between modelled and observed values. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 35 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.9 CO validation with IAGOS Aircraft observations Figure 2.9.1: Time series of the bias (relative differences) in the daily profiles of CO at Frankfurt between 5 January and 31 March 2021, for the analysis from the e-suite on the top panel and the analysis from the o-suite on the bottom panel. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 36 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.9.2: Time series of the bias (relative differences) in the daily profiles of CO at Frankfurt between 5 January and 31 March 2021, for the one day forecast from the e-suite on the top panel and the one day forecast from the o-suite on the bottom panel. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 37 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.9.3: Time series of monthly MNMB from e-suite analysis (light red, empty circles) and o- suite analysis (dark red, filled circle) for free tropospheric CO between 5 January and 31 March 2021 in 6 regions (Top left: Europe (only Frankfurt airport), top right: North America, middle left: Eastern Asia, middle right: India, bottom left: Western Africa, bottom right: South Africa). The histogram bars indicate the number of profiles (i.e., layer values) based on available observations. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 38 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.9.4: Time series of monthly MNMB from e-suite analysis (light red, empty circles) and o- suite analysis (dark red, filled circle) for surface CO between 5 January and 31 March 2021 in 6 regions (Top left: Europe (only Frankfurt airport), top right: North America, middle left: Eastern Asia, middle right: India, bottom left: Western Africa, bottom right: South Africa). The histogram bars indicate the number of profiles (i.e., layer values) based on available observations. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 39 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.9.5: Global maps of gridded averages (5°x5°) for the CO comparisons with IAGOS cruise data for the period 5 January – 31 March 2021. From left to right, first row: IAGOS CO (in ppbv) and air pressure (in hPa). Second row: CO from the analysis of the CAMS e-suite (in ppbv) and associated relative differences (in %) with respect to IAGOS. Third, fourth and fifth rows: same as second row for the o-suite analysis, e-suite one-day forecast and o-suite one-day forecast respectively. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 40 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.9.5: Continued. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 41 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.10 Comparisons with MOPITTv8 and IASI CO data Fig. 2.10.1: MOPITT V8 CO total column as a function of latitude and time (top), for January-February 2021 (top). Relative difference (in %) with the CAMS o-suite (left), with the e-suite (middle) and with e-suite control run (right). The e-suite shows improvements compared to the o-suite, reflecting in the slightly smaller negative bias, especially over the Southern Hemisphere. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 42 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.10.2: Map of MOPITT v8 CO total column for January and February 2021 (top row) and relative difference (in %) with CAMS o-suite (left side), with the e-suite (middle) and with the e-suite control run (right). The e-suite shows small improvements compared to o-suite, reflecting in the slightly smaller negative bias, especially over the Southern Hemisphere. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 43 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.10.3: Time series of CO total columns for MOPITT V8, IASI and the model runs over the selected regions: e-suite (red, solid), control (blue, solid) o-suite (green, solid). Period: January-February 2021. The e-suite is almost equal to the o-suite over all selected regions. Both model runs are in relatively good agreement with the MOPITT observations, showing slight underestimation over all regions, except East Asia and South Africa where the model runs are very close to the observations. The control run shows higher negative bias compared to e-suite and o-suite. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 44 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.11 CO validation with NDACC and TCCON surface remote-sensing observations To understand the NDACC and TCCON results, it is important to mention that there is an overall bias between NDACC and TCCON of approximately 6%, where TCCON is biased low compared to NDACC. Fig. 2.11.1. Comparison of the e-suite 47R2 (light blue) and o-suite (red) CO total column comparison against NDACC FTIR observations. Overall, the bias of the e-suite analysis, 1day forecast and control run is similar as the o-suite. Fig. 2.11.2. The e-suite 47R2 (bottom) and o-suite (top) 1d forecast CO tropospheric (left) and stratospheric (right) partial column comparison against NDACC FTIR. Weekly biases of the e-suite and o-suite are nearly identical. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 45 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.12 Tropospheric nitrogen dioxide comparisons with TROPOMI Figure 2.12.1: Time series of average tropospheric NO2 columns [1015 molec cm-2] from satellite retrievals and model simulations over selected regions for Jan-Mar 2021: TROPOMI IUP-Bremen product (black); TROPOMI operational offline product (grey); e-suite (orange); e-suite control (blue); o-suite (red). The satellite data were gridded to the model resolution (i.e. 0.4° x 0.4° degree) and the CAMS o-suite simulations were used as a-priori in the TROPOMI IUP-Bremen retrievals only. The model simulations were interpolated to the satellite orbit. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 46 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.12.2: Global map comparisons of satellite-retrieved and model-simulated tropospheric NO2 columns [molecules cm-2] for March 2021 for (first row) e-suite and e-suite control compared to TROPOMI IUP-UB, (second row) e-suite and e-suite control compared to TROPOMI operational offline, (third row) o-suite and control compared to TROPOMI IUP-UB and (fourth row) o-suite and control compared to TROPOMI operational offline. The satellite data were gridded to model resolution (0.4° x 0.4° degree) and CAMS o-suite simulations were used as a-priori in the TROPOMI IUP-Bremen retrievals only. The model simulations were interpolated to the satellite orbit. Note that the free tropospheric contribution is not yet well accounted for in the stratospheric correction method used for the TROPOMI IUP-UB product, which leads to a negative offset in this preliminary data version and will be improved by addition of tropospheric background values in the near future. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 47 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.13 Tropospheric nitrogen dioxide comparisons with MAXDOAS Fig. 2.13.1.: The e-suite 47R2 and o-suite 47R1 (red) tropospheric NO2 column comparison against NDACC UVVIS DOAS OFFAXIS at Cabauw. At Cabauw the overall bias for the e-suite 47R2 is very comparable to the o-suite. Similar results are obtained for the 1day forecast comparison and for the control runs. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 48 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.14 Formaldehyde (HCHO) Figure 2.14.1: Time series of average tropospheric HCHO columns [1016 molec cm-2] from satellite retrievals and model simulations over selected regions for Jan-Mar 2021: (black) TROPOMI IUP- Bremen product, (grey) TROPOMI operational offline product, (orange) e-suite, (blue) e-suite control, (red) o-suite. The regions differ from those used for NO2 to better focus on HCHO hotspots: East-Asia (25-40°N, 110-125°E), Eastern US (30-40°N, 75-90°W), Northern Africa (0-15°N, 15°W-25°E) and Indonesia (5°S-5°N, 100-120°E). The satellite data were gridded to model resolution (i.e. 0.4° x 0.4° degree) and CAMS o-suite simulations were used as a-priori in the TROPOMI IUP-Bremen retrievals only. The model simulations were interpolated to the satellite orbit. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 49 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Figure 2.14.2: Monthly mean tropospheric HCHO columns [molec cm-2] for March 2021 for (first row) e-suite compared to TROPOMI IUP-UB, (second row) e-suite minus TROPOMI difference and e-suite control, (third and fourth row) o-suite and o-suite control compared to TROPOMI IUP-UB. The satellite data were gridded to model resolution (0.4° x 0.4° degree) and CAMS o-suite simulations were used as a-priori in the TROPOMI IUP-Bremen retrievals. The model simulations were interpolated to the satellite orbit. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 50 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.14.3. A comparison of the overall bias against UV-VIS MAXDOAS HCHO observations shows no significant changes in the e-suite run compared to the o-suite. The time series at Xianghe is limited. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 51 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.15 Stratospheric ozone: Comparison with satellite observations Fig. 2.15.1: Comparisons between Aura-MLS v4.2 and analyses from the o-suite and Cy47r2 (e-suite) for the period Jan 10-Apr 10, 2021. Top figures show the mean profiles in five latitude bands from South (left) to North (right) polar regions. Bottom figures show the normalized mean bias (NMB i.e. Mean(Model-Observations)/Mean(Observations), solid lines referring to the bottom x-axis), the associated normalized standard deviation (NSD i.e. STD_DEV(Model- Observations)/Mean(Observations), envelopes around the NMB line referring to the bottom x-axis) and the correlation between model and observations (dashed lines referring to the top x-axis). Fig. 2.15.2: As Fig. 2.15.1 but for comparisons against OMPS-LP v2.5. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 52 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.15.3: (Top row) Daily mean bias between Aura MLS v4.2 and model outputs from the osuite and Cy47r2 (esuite) between 1 and 3 hPa and in three latitude bands (from left to right 90°S-60°S, 30°S-30°N and 60°N-90°N). Osuite model data are the analysis (solid red lines), the 5 day forecast (dashed red lines) and the control run (red dots). Similar values are shown for Cy47r2 in blue. (Bottow row) Standard deviation associated to the daily mean bias shown in the top row. Fig. 2.15.4: As Fig. 2.15.3 but between 3 and 10 hPa. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 53 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.15.5: As Fig. 2.15.3 but between 10 and 30 hPa. Fig. 2.15.6: As Fig. 2.15.3 but between 30 and 70 hPa. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 54 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Fig. 2.15.7: As Fig. 2.15.3 but between 70 and 100 hPa. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 55 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 2.16 Stratospheric ozone: Comparison with NDACC observations Fig. 2.16.1. Ozone LIDAR profile differences for the o-suite (left) and e-suite 47R2 (right). The top row shows the analysis at Haute Provence, the bottom row the 5d forecast at Hohenpeissenberg. Both runs perform equally well. Fig. 2.16.2. O-suite and e-suite 47R2 overall stratospheric column biases against NDACC UVVIS ZENITH observations for both the analysis and the 5d forecast. Only minor changes in performance are observed. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 56 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 3. References Albert, M. F. M. A., Anguelova, M. D., Manders, A. M. M., Schaap, M., and de Leeuw, G.: Parameterization of oceanic whitecap fraction based on satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 13725–13751, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-13725-2016, 2016. Agusti-Panareda, A., Monitoring upgrades of analysis/forecast system, MACC-III Deliverable D44.04, June 2015. Basart, S, A. Benedictow, Y. Bennouna, A.-M. Blechschmidt, S. Chabrillat, Y. Christophe, E. Cuevas, H. J. Eskes, K. M. Hansen, O. Jorba, J. Kapsomenakis, B. Langerock, T. Pay, A. Richter, N. Sudarchikova, M. Schulz, A. Wagner, C. Zerefos, Upgrade verification note for the CAMS real-time global atmospheric composition service: Evaluation of the e- suite for the CAMS upgrade of July 2019, Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) report, CAMS84_2018SC1_D3.2.1-201907_esuite_v1.pdf, July 2019, doi:10.24380/fcwq-yp50. Benedetti, A., J.-J. Morcrette, O. Boucher, A. Dethof, R. J. Engelen, M. Fisher, H. Flentjes, N. Huneeus, L. Jones, J. W. Kaiser, S. Kinne, A. Mangold, M. Razinger, A. J. Simmons, M. Suttie, and the GEMS-AER team: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF Integrated Forecast System. Part II : Data assimilation, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, doi:10.1029/2008JD011115, 2009. Bergamaschi, P., Frankenberg, C., Meirink, J. F., Krol, M., Villani, M. G., Houweling, S., Dentener, F., Dlugokencky, E. J., Miller, J. B., Gatti, L. V., Engel, A., and Levin, I.: Inverse modeling of global and regional CH4 emissions using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D22301, doi:10.1029/2009JD012287, 2009. Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Beljaars, A., Agusti-Panareda, A., Calvet, J.-C., Jacobs, C., van den Hurk, B., Viterbo, P., Lafont, S., Dutra, E., Jarlan, L., Balzarolo, M., Papale, D., and van der Werf, G.: Natural carbon dioxide exchanges in the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System: implementation and offline validation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1–24, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50488, 2013. Cariolle, D. and Teyssèdre, H.: A revised linear ozone photochemistry parameterization for use in transport and general circulation models: multi-annual simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2183-2196, doi:10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007, 2007. Carn, S. A., V. E. Fioletov, C. A. McLinden, C. Li & N. A. Krotkov, A decade of global volcanic SO2 emissions measured from space, Scientific Reports volume 7, Article number: 44095 (2017). Dee, D. P. and S. Uppala, Variational bias correction of satellite radiance data in the ERA-Interim reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,135, 1830-1841, 2009. Eskes, H., Huijnen, V., Arola, A., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Botek, E., Boucher, O., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Cuevas, E., Engelen, R., Flentje, H., Gaudel, A., Griesfeller, J., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Kinne, S., Langerock, B., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz, M., Schulz, M., Sudarchikova, N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Validation of reactive gases and aerosols in the MACC global analysis and forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3523-3543, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3523-2015, 2015. Eskes, H.J., S. Basart, A. Benedictow, Y. Bennouna, A.-M. Blechschmidt, S. Chabrillat, Y. Christophe, E. Cuevas, H. Flentje, K. M. Hansen, J. Kapsomenakis, B. Langerock, M. Ramonet, A. Richter, M. Schulz, N. Sudarchikova, A. Wagner, T. Warneke, C. Zerefos, Observation characterisation and validation methods document, Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) report, CAMS84_2018SC2_D6.1.1-2020_observations_v5.pdf, January 2021. Available from: http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/user-support/validation/verification-global-services CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 57 of 64
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Eskes, H. J., S. Basart, A. Benedictow, Y. Bennouna, A.-M. Blechschmidt, S. Chabrillat, Y. Christophe, K. M. Hansen, J. Kapsomenakis, B. Langerock, M. Pitkänen, M. Ramonet, A. Richter, N. Sudarchikova, M. Schulz, A. Wagner, T. Warneke (UBC), C. Zerefos, Upgrade verification note for the CAMS near-real time global atmospheric composition service: Evaluation of the e-suite for the CAMS 47R1 upgrade of October 2020, Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) report, CAMS84_2018SC2_D3.2.1- 202009_esuite.pdf, 2 October 2020, doi:10.24380/fzdx-j890. Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Arteta, J., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Diamantakis, M., Engelen, R. J., Gaudel, A., Inness, A., Jones, L., Josse, B., Katragkou, E., Marecal, V., Peuch, V.-H., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Stein, O., and Tsikerdekis, A.: Tropospheric chemistry in the Integrated Forecasting System of ECMWF, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 975-1003, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015, 2015. Flemming, J., Benedetti, A., Inness, A., Engelen, R. J., Jones, L., Huijnen, V., Remy, S., Parrington, M., Suttie, M., Bozzo, A., Peuch, V.-H., Akritidis, D., and Katragkou, E.: The CAMS interim Reanalysis of Carbon Monoxide, Ozone and Aerosol for 2003–2015, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1945-1983, doi:10.5194/acp-17-1945-2017, 2017. Granier, C. et al.: Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period. Climatic Change (109), 2011 Huijnen, V., et al.: The global chemistry transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric chemistry version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445-473, doi:10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010, 2010. Inness, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Crepulja, M., Engelen, R. J., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Gaudel, A., Hendrick, F., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Keppens, A., Langerock, B., de Mazière, M., Melas, D., Parrington, M., Peuch, V. H., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Data assimilation of satellite-retrieved ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide with ECMWF's Composition-IFS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5275-5303, doi:10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015, 2015. Janssens-Maenhout, G., Dentener, F., Aardenne, J. V., Monni, S., Pagliari, V., Orlandini, L., Klimont, Z., Kurokawa, J., Akimoto, H., Ohara, T., Wankmueller, R., Battye, B., Grano, D., Zuber, A., and Keating, T.: EDGAR-HTAP: a Harmonized Gridded Air Pollution Emission Dataset Based on National Inventories, JRC68434, EUR report No EUR 25 299–2012, ISBN 978-92-79- 23122-0, ISSN 1831-9424, European Commission Publications Office, Ispra (Italy), 2012. Kaiser, J. W., Heil, A., Andreae, M. O., Benedetti, A., Chubarova, N., Jones, L., Morcrette, J.-J., Razinger, M., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., and van der Werf, G. R.: Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power, Biogeosciences, 9, 527-554, doi:10.5194/bg-9- 527-2012, 2012. Massart, S., Flemming, J., Cariolle, D., Jones, L., High resolution CO tracer forecasts, MACC-III Deliverable D22.04, May 2015, available from http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/documents/macciii/deliverables/grg Morcrette, J.-J., O. Boucher, L. Jones, D. Salmond, P. Bechtold, A. Beljaars, A. Benedetti, A. Bonet, J. W. Kaiser, M. Razinger, M. Schulz, S. Serrar, A. J. Simmons, M. Sofiev, M. Suttie, A. M. Tompkins, and A. Untch: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF Integrated Forecast System. Part I: Forward modelling, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206, doi:10.1029/2008JD011235, 2009. Rémy, S., Kipling, Z., Flemming, J., Boucher, O., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Bozzo, A., Ades, M., Huijnen, V., Benedetti, A., Engelen, R., Peuch, V.-H., and Morcrette, J.-J.: Description and evaluation of the tropospheric aerosol scheme in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS-AER, cycle 45R1), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4627–4659, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd- 12-4627-2019, 2019. CAMS84_2018SC3_D3.2.1-202105_esuite - Evaluation e-suite Page 58 of 64
You can also read
