1 / 18

R.J. Wichink Kruit 1 , D. Simpson 2 , M. Schaap 1 , R. Kranenburg 1 , E. Dammers 1 ,

ÉCLAIRE model inter-comparison of atmospheric nitrogen deposition and concentrations over Europe. R.J. Wichink Kruit 1 , D. Simpson 2 , M. Schaap 1 , R. Kranenburg 1 , E. Dammers 1 ,

rachel
Download Presentation

R.J. Wichink Kruit 1 , D. Simpson 2 , M. Schaap 1 , R. Kranenburg 1 , E. Dammers 1 ,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ÉCLAIRE model inter-comparison of atmospheric nitrogen deposition and concentrations over Europe R.J. Wichink Kruit1, D. Simpson2, M. Schaap1, R. Kranenburg1, E. Dammers1, C.A. Geels3, C. Skjoth4, M. Engardt5, A. Graff6, R. Stern7 , B. Bessagnet8, L. Rouil8, J.M. Baldasano9, M. Pay9, D. Hauglustaine10, A. Nyiri2, M.A. Sutton11, S. Reis11, P. Thunis12 and C. Cuvelier12 1 TNO, Dept. of Climate, Air and Sustainability, P.O. Box 80015, NL-3508TA Utrecht, The Netherlands 2 Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Air Pollution Section Research Department, P.O. Box 43, Blindern, N-0313, Oslo, Norway 3 Aarhus University, Department of Environmental Science-Atmospheric modeling, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark 4 University of Worcester, National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, Henwick Grove, VR2 6AJ, Worcester, United Kingdom 5 SMHI, Norkoping 6 Umweltbundesamt, Postfach 1406, D-06813 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany 7 Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Meteorologie und Troposphärische Umweltforschung, Carl-Heinrich-Becker Weg 6-10, D-12165 Berlin, Germany 8 INERIS, Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques Parc Technologique, ALATA, F-60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France 9 Barcelona Supercomputing Center, c/ Jordi Girona 29, E-08034 Barcelona, Spain 10 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, UMR 8212 CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 11 CEH, Natural Environmental Research Council, Bush Estate, Pinicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB 12 European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, I-21020 Ispra (Va), Italy

  2. Motivation It is difficult to say anything about uncertainties in model calculations of Nr-deposition as there are no observations of total Nr deposition available yet. This study aims to: • deliver an ensemble map of the total Nr-deposition over Europe based on 7 regional European CTMs, and to • estimate the inter-model variation in the total Nr-deposition over Europe • validate the models by comparing modelled wet depositions and concentrations with observations from the EMEP wet deposition network and NitroEurope IP

  3. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Model settings Models: EMEP, LOTOS-EUROS, DEHM, MATCH, CMAQ, CHIMERE, RCGC, INCA (global) Emissions:provided by INERIS at 0.5° x 0.25° Longitude/Latitude Note: INCA used own emissions! Resolution: 0.5° x 0.25° (~28x28 km2) DEHM: hemispheric (~ 50x50 km2) INCA (global): 3.75° x 1.875° (~210x210 km2) Other Input:not prescribed. Output domain:

  4. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Individual model results dry NHx wet NHx dry NOy wet NOy CMAQ INCA RCGC DEHM EMEP CHIMERE MATCH LOTOS-EUROS

  5. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Ensemble of 7 regional CTMs:Total Nr

  6. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Contribution of NHx to total Nr

  7. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget 10-day running mean of model domain Total Nr Dry Nr ~ 40% Wet Nr ~ 60%

  8. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Contribution of dry Nr to total Nr

  9. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget 10-day running mean of model domain Dry NHx ~ 45% Dry NOy ~ 35% Wet NHx ~ 55% Wet Noy ~ 65%

  10. Development of GHG projection guidelines Conclusions from model inter-comparison • This study showed that the total Nr-deposition (NHx +NOy) in the model domain were rather similar in all models • The variation in model results is largest for the dry deposition of NHx • Larger dry deposition is compensated by smaller wet deposition • The average variation in the modeled Nr-deposition was about • 30-50% over land and • 50-100% over water • NHx vs. NOy deposition is approximately 50% vs. 50%, but large regional differences! • Dry versus wet deposition contributions are approximately • 45% vs. 55% for NHx and • 35% vs. 65% for NOy and • 40% vs. 60% for total Nr (but large regional differences again!)

  11. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Comparison with EMEP wet deposition and NitroEurope IP observation

  12. WetNHx[mg/m2]

  13. WetNOy[mg/m2]

  14. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget LOTOS-EUROS NH3 INCA CMAQ RCGC CHIMERE DEHM MATCH EMEP ENSEMBLE

  15. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget NH3

  16. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Conclusions from comparison with observations • Ensemble results of the seven regional CTM models are generally better than the individual model results • Modelled wet deposition of NOy correlates much better with observed wet deposition than NHx. • Regional CTMs are well able to estimate ‘background’ NH3concentrations • Data from NitroEurope IP is very useful for the ECLAIRE model evaluation! • Further analysis of the model-measurement comparison and reasons for inter-model differences is a priority for the next phase in ECLAIRE.

  17. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget Thank you!

  18. Modelling the European Nitrogen budget HNO3

More Related