1 / 14

HTAP model (inter) comparisons

M.J. Evans 1 , I Bey 2 , A.M. Fiore 3 , G. Folberth 2 , V. Huijnen 4 , S. Koumoutsaris 2 , P. Moinat 5 , M. Schultz 6 , S. Schröder 6 ,ITOP/INTEX/NEAQS 7 1 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland ,

aolani
Download Presentation

HTAP model (inter) comparisons

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. M.J. Evans1, I Bey2, A.M. Fiore3, G. Folberth2, V. Huijnen4, S. Koumoutsaris2, P. Moinat5, M. Schultz6, S. Schröder6,ITOP/INTEX/NEAQS7 1 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 3 NOAA GFDL, 201 Forrestal Rd, Princeton, NJ, USA, 4 Climate Research - Chemistry and Climate, KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands, 5 CNRM, Toulouse, France 6 Forschungszentrum Jülich, ICG-2: Troposphäre, Jülich, Germany 7 ITOP/INTEX/NEAQS Science teams HTAP model (inter) comparisons

  2. The convention on long-range transport of pollution

  3. The convention on long-range transport of pollution

  4. Actors: ‘Never work with animals or children’ Modellers: ‘Never do a model inter-comparison’ You know the conclusion ‘The models differed due to a complex set of processes involving, chemistry, photolysis, aerosols, advection, convection, diffusion, wet deposition, dry deposition, emissions, the stratosphere, the ocean*, ………… * Choose your favourite three processes Multi-model comparisons / evaluations

  5. ‘Passive’ tracers Oliver Wild Annual full chemistry Arlene Fiore . Campaign full chemistry ? Future climates 4 Sets of model comparisons

  6. ‘Passive’ tracers Oliver Wild Annual full chemistry Arlene Fiore Campaign full chemistry Mat Evans + Isabelle Bey Future climates 4 Sets of model comparisons

  7. ICARTT / INTEX / NEAQS / ITOP

  8. MOZART TOMCAT MOCAGE MOZECH x 2 GEOS-Chem TM5 CAMCHEM (?) Current models

  9. Standard comparisons….. Plans

  10. Standard comparisons….. Plans

  11. Other approaches – more fun ….. Cluster analysis Principal components Some of these approaches have been used to analyse the ITOP observations. Now apply to the models Plans

  12. We will make the along flight model and measurement files public Hopefully find a way of ‘usefully’ comparing model capabilities to simulate long range transport of pollution Should inform the HTAP process Final thoughts

More Related