TY - JOUR
T1 - Insights into the deterministic skill of air quality ensembles from the analysis of AQMEII data
AU - Kioutsioukis, Ioannis
AU - Im, Ulas
AU - Solazzo, Efisio
AU - Bianconi, Roberto
AU - Badia, Alba
AU - Balzarini, Alessandra
AU - Baró, Rocío
AU - Bellasio, Roberto
AU - Brunner, Dominik
AU - Chemel, Charles
AU - Curci, Gabriele
AU - Van Der Gon, Hugo Denier
AU - Flemming, Johannes
AU - Forkel, Renate
AU - Giordano, Lea
AU - Jiménez-Guerrero, Pedro
AU - Hirtl, Marcus
AU - Jorba, Oriol
AU - Manders-Groot, Astrid
AU - Neal, Lucy
AU - Pérez, Juan L.
AU - Pirovano, Guidio
AU - San Jose, Roberto
AU - Savage, Nicholas
AU - Schroder, Wolfram
AU - Sokhi, Ranjeet S.
AU - Syrakov, Dimiter
AU - Tuccella, Paolo
AU - Werhahn, Johannes
AU - Wolke, Ralf
AU - Hogrefe, Christian
AU - Galmarini, Stefano
N1 - Funding Information:
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of various groups to the second Air Quality Model Evaluation international Initiative (AQMEII) activity: US EPA, Environment Canada, Mexican Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales-SEMARNAT) and National Institute of Ecology (Instituto Nacional de Ecología-INE) (North American national emissions inventories); US EPA (North American emissions processing); TNO (European emissions processing); ECMWF/MACC project&Me´téo-France/CNRM-GAME (Chemical boundary conditions). Ambient North American concentration measurements were extracted from Environment Canada's National Atmospheric Chemistry Database (NAtChem) PM database and provided by several US and Canadian agencies (AQS, CAPMoN, CASTNet, IMPROVE, NAPS, SEARCH and STN networks); North American precipitation-chemistry measurements were extracted from NAtChem's precipitation-chemistry database and were provided by several US and Canadian agencies (CAPMoN, NADP, NBPMN, NSPSN, and REPQ networks); the WMO World Ozone and Ultraviolet Data Centre (WOUDC) and its data-contributing agencies provided North American and European ozone sonde profiles; NASA's Aerosol Robotic Network (AeroNet) and its data-contributing agencies provided North American and European AOD measurements; the MOZAIC Data Centre and its contributing airlines provided North American and European aircraft take-off and landing vertical profiles. For European air quality data the following data centres were used: EMEP European Environment Agency, European Topic Center on Air and Climate Change, and AirBase provided European air- and precipitation-chemistry data. The Finnish Meteorological Institute is acknowledged for providing biomass burning emission data for Europe. Data from meteorological station monitoring networks were provided by NOAA and Environment Canada (for the US and Canadian meteorological network data) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) data support section. Joint Research Center Ispra and Institute for Environment and Sustainability provided their ENSEMBLE system for model output harmonization and analyses and evaluation. The co-ordination and support of the European contribution through COST Action ES1004 EuMetChem is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or any other organization participating in the AQMEII project. This paper has been subjected to EPA review and approved for publication. The UPM authors thankfully acknowledge the computer resources, technical expertise, and assistance provided by the Centro de Supercomputación y Visualización de Madrid (CESVIMA) and the Spanish Supercomputing Network (BSC). GC and PT were supported by the Italian Space Agency (ASI) in the frame of the PRIMES project (contract no. I/017/11/0). The same authors are deeply thankful to the Euro Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change (CMCC) for having made available the computational resources.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2016.
PY - 2016/12/20
Y1 - 2016/12/20
N2 - Simulations from chemical weather models are subject to uncertainties in the input data (e.g. emission inventory, initial and boundary conditions) as well as those intrinsic to the model (e.g. physical parameterization, chemical mechanism). Multi-model ensembles can improve the forecast skill, provided that certain mathematical conditions are fulfilled. In this work, four ensemble methods were applied to two different datasets, and their performance was compared for ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Apart from the unconditional ensemble average, the approach behind the other three methods relies on adding optimum weights to members or constraining the ensemble to those members that meet certain conditions in time or frequency domain. The two different datasets were created for the first and second phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII). The methods are evaluated against ground level observations collected from the EMEP (European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme) and AirBase databases. The goal of the study is to quantify to what extent we can extract predictable signals from an ensemble with superior skill over the single models and the ensemble mean. Verification statistics show that the deterministic models simulate better O3 than NO2 and PM10, linked to different levels of complexity in the represented processes. The unconditional ensemble mean achieves higher skill compared to each station's best deterministic model at no more than 60% of the sites, indicating a combination of members with unbalanced skill difference and error dependence for the rest. The promotion of the right amount of accuracy and diversity within the ensemble results in an average additional skill of up to 31% compared to using the full ensemble in an unconditional way. The skill improvements were higher for O3 and lower for PM10, associated with the extent of potential changes in the joint distribution of accuracy and diversity in the ensembles. The skill enhancement was superior using the weighting scheme, but the training period required to acquire representative weights was longer compared to the sub-selecting schemes. Further development of the method is discussed in the conclusion.
AB - Simulations from chemical weather models are subject to uncertainties in the input data (e.g. emission inventory, initial and boundary conditions) as well as those intrinsic to the model (e.g. physical parameterization, chemical mechanism). Multi-model ensembles can improve the forecast skill, provided that certain mathematical conditions are fulfilled. In this work, four ensemble methods were applied to two different datasets, and their performance was compared for ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Apart from the unconditional ensemble average, the approach behind the other three methods relies on adding optimum weights to members or constraining the ensemble to those members that meet certain conditions in time or frequency domain. The two different datasets were created for the first and second phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII). The methods are evaluated against ground level observations collected from the EMEP (European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme) and AirBase databases. The goal of the study is to quantify to what extent we can extract predictable signals from an ensemble with superior skill over the single models and the ensemble mean. Verification statistics show that the deterministic models simulate better O3 than NO2 and PM10, linked to different levels of complexity in the represented processes. The unconditional ensemble mean achieves higher skill compared to each station's best deterministic model at no more than 60% of the sites, indicating a combination of members with unbalanced skill difference and error dependence for the rest. The promotion of the right amount of accuracy and diversity within the ensemble results in an average additional skill of up to 31% compared to using the full ensemble in an unconditional way. The skill improvements were higher for O3 and lower for PM10, associated with the extent of potential changes in the joint distribution of accuracy and diversity in the ensembles. The skill enhancement was superior using the weighting scheme, but the training period required to acquire representative weights was longer compared to the sub-selecting schemes. Further development of the method is discussed in the conclusion.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006982258&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/acp-16-15629-2016
DO - 10.5194/acp-16-15629-2016
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85006982258
SN - 1680-7316
VL - 16
SP - 15629
EP - 15652
JO - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
JF - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
IS - 24
ER -