Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
emep:action_groups [2010-12-13 15:55:32] svetlanat |
— (current) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== MSC-W Action Groups ====== | ||
- | |||
- | ===== Aerosol Modelling ===== | ||
- | |||
- | ==== Meeting December 9, 2010 ==== | ||
- | Aerosol modelling group meeting | ||
- | December 9, 2010 | ||
- | |||
- | Participated: | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | The main aim of the first (kick-off and brain storming) meeting on aerosol modelling was to initiate a discussion within AP&CM section on necessary/ | ||
- | |||
- | ST suggested the following quite general issues for the discussion: | ||
- | specific purposes/ | ||
- | importance (purpose specific?) of various aerosol processes and sources | ||
- | what are presently the weakest elements in modelling of aerosol relevant processes | ||
- | (in NorESM and EMEP models and based on the experience from AEROCOM exercises); | ||
- | what are the most “urgent” processes/ | ||
- | what parameterisations/ | ||
- | that would be interesting to test and that could be considered for use in our models? | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | The group spent some time discussing the purpose and strategy of the group as regards long-term ideas for improvement of aerosol modelling and more concrete and immediate, mostly project required, developments and implementations. It was decided to make two plans: the long-term development plan and short-term action plan. | ||
- | |||
- | The group went on further discussing a variety of aerosol modelling related issues and potential ways of joining our efforts. Some of the most identifiable points from the rather : | ||
- | |||
- | development and further exchange of different parameterisation for aerosol processes within EMEP and NorESM models - this requires making more or less alone-standing modules which can easily be implemented in the other model (the old, non-modular, | ||
- | implementing EMEP model in the AEROCOM system has a high priority – this will hopefully help us to identify the processes which needs more attention | ||
- | looking at the life cycles of different species | ||
- | about making use of existing aerosol models (e.g. M7, SALSA, | ||
- | regarding the use of different types of aerosol models (i.e. modal, sectional, monodisperse) – MS suggested that we could read his reflections concerning this in his rehabilitation thesis | ||
- | xx | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | The main outcome from the meeting – first formulations for working plans | ||
- | |||
- | Long-term Development Plan (3-5 years): | ||
- | |||
- | Explore the possibility of implementing selected aerosol models (modules) in the EMEP model, or the possibility of using their individual subroutines (processes). | ||
- | |||
- | Short-term Action Plan (up to 1 year): | ||
- | |||
- | 1.Improvements of the modelling of aerosol size distribution: | ||
- | |||
- | 1.1 New size-resolved TNO particle number (PN) emissions (ST) | ||
- | |||
- | 1.2 Update of nucleation parameterisation (suggested to test the one developed in EUCAARI – MS, or Janne Berge) | ||
- | |||
- | 1.3 Evaluation within AEROCOM | ||
- | |||
- | 2.Windblown dust modelling: | ||
- | |||
- | 2.1 Suggested that NorESM could test EMEP dust scheme; EMEP and NorESM could work together on extending the EMEP dust scheme to a global scale (preparation of input data on soil properties, etc.) | ||
- | |||
- | 2.2 ST could evaluate implementation of MS's dust scheme in the EMEP model and compare results with these two parameterisations | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | * [[emep: | ||