1 / 24

Bruce Denby Wolfgang Spangl FAIRMODE 3 rd Plenary, Kjeller Norway September2010

FAIRMODE The combined use of models and monitoring for applications related to the European air quality Directive: SG1-WG2 FAIRMODE. Bruce Denby Wolfgang Spangl FAIRMODE 3 rd Plenary, Kjeller Norway September2010. Content. Aims of SG1-WG2 Overview of methods Institute and activities list

pakuna
Download Presentation

Bruce Denby Wolfgang Spangl FAIRMODE 3 rd Plenary, Kjeller Norway September2010

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. FAIRMODEThe combined use of models and monitoring for applications related to the European air quality Directive: SG1-WG2 FAIRMODE Bruce Denby Wolfgang Spangl FAIRMODE 3rd Plenary, Kjeller Norway September2010

  2. Content Aims of SG1-WG2 Overview of methods Institute and activities list Registered FAIRMODE list Agenda and plans for today

  3. Aims of SG1 To promote ‘good practice’ for combining models and monitoring (Directive related) To provide a forum for modellers and users interested in applying these methodologies To develop and apply quality assurance practices when combining models and monitoring To provide guidance on station representativeness and station selection

  4. Some concepts • ’Combination’ used as a general term • Data integration • Refers to any ‘bringing together’ of relevant and useful information for AQ modelling in one system (e.g. emissions/ meteorology/ satellite/ landuse/ population/ etc.) • Data fusion • The combination of separate data sources to form a new and optimal dataset (e.g. models/monitoring/satellite/land use/etc.). Statistically optimal but does not necessarily preserve the physical characteristics • Data assimilation • The active, during model integration, assimilation of observational data (e.g. monitoring/satellite). Physical laws are obeyed

  5. Expertise required for methods Data fusion Data assimilation Monte Carlo MarkovChain Bayesianheirarchicalapproaches 4D var Ensemble Kalman filter Optimal interpoaltion Kriging methods Increasingstatisticalexpertise GIS based methods Regression IDW Modelling Increasingmodelexpertise

  6. Users and developers (DA)

  7. Users and developers (DF:1)

  8. Users and developers (DF:2)

  9. Representativeness

  10. Registered for SG1

  11. Agenda today in SG1-WG2 • Status • Short presentation on representativeness (Wolfgang Spangl) • Discussion around activities for this and next year: • Defining representativeness for validation and assimilation purposes • Overview of institutes applying assimilation methods • Review of existing methods implemented in Europe. (Template and contributions) • Quality assurance and validation methods when combining monitoring and modelling (Input to SG4) • Financing and securing contributions to the activities of SG1 • 2011 activities (workshop, special session AQ conference) • Any other business

  12. Aims of SG1-WG2 2010 • Update list of institutes carrying out DA and DF • Develop an accessible review of these methods (→ WG1 ‘Good practise and guidance’) • Contributions from listed institutes • Recommend methods for quality assurance (→ SG4 ‘Bench marking’ → WG1 ‘guidance’) • Discussion today • Develop an understanding of representativeness (→ SG4 ’Bench marking’ → WG1 ‘guidance’) • Discussion today

  13. http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/ For information and contributions contact Bruce Denby bde@nilu.no and register interest on the website

  14. Some concepts • Geometrical methods • Methods for interpolation or ‘combination’ that are based on geometrical arguments. E.g. Inverse distance weighting, bilinear interpolation, as an interpolation method. Simple combinations of data, some GIS based methods. • Non spatio-temporal statistical methods • Covers methods such as regression and bias corrections that do not take into account the spatial or temporal correlation of the data. • Spatio-temporal statistical methods • Covers a wide range of methods e.g. 2-4 D variational methods, kriging methods, optimal interpolation. Based on Bayesian concepts. Minimalisation of some specified error.

  15. Examples: Regional scale Residual kriging EnKF Model (LOTOS-EUROS) Denby B., M. Schaap, A. Segers, P. Builtjes and J. Horálek (2008). Comparison of two data assimilation methods for assessing PM10 exceedances on the European scale. Atmos. Environ. 42, 7122-7134. Comparison of Residual kriging and Ensemble Kalman Filter for assessment of regional PM10 in Europe

  16. Examples: Regional scale Residual kriging EnKF Model (LOTOS-EUROS) Denby B., M. Schaap, A. Segers, P. Builtjes and J. Horálek (2008). Comparison of two data assimilation methods for assessing PM10 exceedances on the European scale. Atmos. Environ. 42, 7122-7134. Comparison of Residual kriging and Ensemble Kalman Filter for assessment of regional PM10 in Europe

  17. Examples: Regional scale EPS Graph http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/. MACC ensemble forecast system

  18. Examples: Regional scale http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/. MACC ensemble forecast system

  19. Examples: Local and urban • Few examples of data fusion/assimilation on the local and urban scale • Spatial representativeness of monitoring sites is very limited (10 – 1000 m) • Often the number of sites is limited (compared to their spatial representativeness) • Monitoring contains little information for initialising forecasts • Application for assessment is possible • E.g. regression, optimal interpolation

  20. Representativeness • Two types of representativeness: • spatial and temporal (physical) • similarity (categorisation) • Knowledge of this is important for: • validation of models • data fusion/assimilation

  21. Representativeness • For modelling applications the representativeness of monitoring data should be reflected in the uncertainty of that data • NB: Not just the measurement uncertainty • This is reflected in the AQ Directive (Annex I) “The fixed measurements that have to be selected for comparison with modelling results shall be representative of the scale covered by the model” • Representativeness will be pollutant and indicator dependent

  22. Representativeness and the AQD • For monitoring the AQ Directive states: • For industrial areas concentrations should be representative of a 250 x 250 m area • for traffic emissions the assessment should be representative for a 100 m street segment • Urban background concentrations should be representative of several square kilometres • For rural stations (ecosystem assessment) the area for which the calculated concentrations are valid is 1000 km2 (30 x 30 km) • These monitoring requirements also set limits on model resolution

  23. Defining spatial representativeness • The degree of spatial variability within a specified area • e.g. within a 10 x 10 km region surrounding a station the variability is  30% • Useful for validation and for data assimilation • The size of the area with a specified spatial variability • e.g. < 20% of spatial mean (EUROAIRNET) or < 10% of observed concentration range in Europe (Spangl, 2007) • Useful for determining the spatial representativeness of a site

  24. Observed spatial variability Coefficient of variation σc/c for annual indicators as a function of area (diameter) for all stations (Airbase) 0.5 47% NO2 PM10 SOMO35 At 5km resolution variability is 34% 24% 0.2 σc/c 0 200 km diameter A random sampling within a 5km grid in an average European city will give this variability

More Related