Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- emep:emep-experts:tfmmtrendeurodelta [2015-06-09 09:18:16]
augustin.colette@ineris.fr [Output Format]
+++ emep:emep-experts:tfmmtrendeurodelta [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current)
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
   * Marta Garcia Vivanco (CIEMAT/CHIMERE);
   * Mihaela Mircea, Gino Briganti, Andrea Cappelletti, Mario Adani, Massimo D'Isidoro, Antonio Piersanti, Luisella Ciancarella (ENEA/MINNI);
-  * Giancarlo Ciarelli, Sebnem Aksoyoglu (PSI/CAMx);
+  * Sebnem Aksoyoglu (PSI/CAMx);
-  * Guido Pirovano (RSE/CAMx);
   * Kees Cuvelier (exJRC/TrendTool);
-  * Johannes Bieser (HZG/CMAQ);
   * Yelva Roustan & Valentin Raffort (CEREA/Polair3D);
   * Hilde Fagerli & Svetlana Tsyro (met.no/EMEP),
+  * Camilla Andersson (SMHI/MATCH).
   * Maria-Teresa Pay (BSC/CMAQ);
+  * Noelia Otero Felipe, Kathleen Mar (IASS/WRF-Chem)
   * Martijn Schaap (TNO/LOTOS).
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 In contrast with other model intercomparison initiatives, the Eurodelta framework is quite constrained, with tight standards on the consistency of the setup of participating models in order to allow pointing out the geophysical processed bearing upon the modelled response. In the present scoping paper, we summarize the main features of the Eurodelta 3 phase II modelling exercise.
+**NOTE: An updated description of the present modelling plan is now available as a GMDD paper:
+http://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2016-309/
+**
 ===== Modelling experiment =====
@@ Line 31: / Line 35: @@
 The choice of the modelled years is a trade-off between the policy relevance of the present initiative (that should support the assessment of the efficiency of the Gothenburg protocol) and technical feasibility. Despite the agreement of the protocol in 1999, we will use 2000 as an intermediate year because of the better quality of emission data for this year (as well as more complete observation coverage).
-{{ :emep:emep-experts:tiers_model_v2.jpg?600 |}}
+{{:emep:emep-experts:Tiers_20151123.png?600|}}
 Table 1: Summary of model experiments and corresponding key scientific questions. For each tier, the number of simulated years is expressed in addition to the previous tier.
@@ Line 40: / Line 46: @@
 Participants: CAMx, CHIMERE, CMAQ (x2), LOTOS, MINNI, EMEP, POLAIR
-__Tier 2:  5 additional annual simulations__
+__Tier 2:  7 additional annual simulations__
 Participants: CHIMERE, CMAQ (x2), LOTOS, EMEP, POLAIR (not 100%)
@@ Line 57: / Line 63: @@
 The modelling domain is displayed in the Figure below. The model used for the analysis of the Campaigns (green lines below)does not fit in the Euro-Cordex domain (grey dots, see section on meteorology), therefore a new domain (blue dots) at a resolution of about 25km is proposed. This domain follows a regular lat/lon projection with increments of dlat=0.25 and dlon=0.4, which is about 25km.
-The coordinates of the centre of grid cells are [[http://dods.extra.cea.fr/store/colettea/EURODELTA/COORD_EDT]].
+The coordinates of the centre of grid cells are [[https://esgf.extra.cea.fr/thredds/fileServer/store/colettea/EURODELTA/COORD_EDT]].
 {{ :emep:emep-experts:mode_domain_edt.png?450 |}}
@@ Line 72: / Line 78: @@
 The volume of data for the meteorological forcing is at least 50G/yr (estimate for the list of variables required for Chimere ). The data is available at:
-[[http://dods.extra.cea.fr/store/colettea/EURODELTA/METEO/]].
+[[https://esgf.extra.cea.fr/thredds/catalog/store/colettea/EURODELTA/METEO/catalog.html]].
 ===== Biogenic and natural Emissions =====
@@ Line 105: / Line 111: @@
 In the proposed spatialisation method, only the location and fluxes of large point sources change in time over the past decades. While emissions at a 50km resolution are available for selected countries, pollutants, and sectors, it is considered that the spatialisation of these emissions is not necessarily better than the more recent techniques involving consistent and high-resolution proxies over Europe. This should in particular be the case for road and residential sectors. For the industrial sector, there is however the potential to improve the quality of inventories in the 1990s. This potential added value will be investigated when preparing inventories for 1990 and 2000 (by 20150228).
-The INERIS-EDT 2010 emission data and TNO profiles are available at: [[http://dods.extra.cea.fr/store/colettea/EURODELTA/EMISSIONS/]]
+The INERIS-EDT 2010 emission data and TNO profiles are available at: [[https://esgf.extra.cea.fr/thredds/catalog/store/colettea/EURODELTA/EMISSIONS/catalog.html]]
 TNO will make a sensitivity simulation to compare the result with the above spatialisation strategy with the TNO-MACC3 emissions for 2010. Other modelling groups are welcome to share the outcome of any corresponding sensitivity simulations.
@@ Line 119: / Line 125: @@
 For ozone, a 3D climatology based on observational vertical profiles is consolidated and updated by J. Logan et al. Proposal is to use this 3D climatology in conjunction with a temporal (monthly) variation over the past 20 years. Long lived species (CH4) are held fixed in the simulation. A few other species such as sulphate, ammonium, nitrate and sea salt are also provided. Dust derived from a global model are also given. Particulate species are split between the fine (0-2.5µm) and coarse fraction (2.5-10.0µm) with the following median diameter: 0.33e-6 m for all fine, 3.0e-6 m for coarse nitrate, 4.8e-6 m for coarse sea salt, 5.0e-6 m for coarse dust. The molar mass to be used for the conversion of dust to µg/m3 is 200g/mole.
-The data is available at: http://dods.extra.cea.fr/store/colettea/EURODELTA/BOUN_COND/Obs_EMEP.tar
+The data is available as Obs_EMEP_1990-2010.tar under : https://esgf.extra.cea.fr/thredds/catalog/store/colettea/EURODELTA/BOUN_COND/catalog.html
 The brief documentation is provided here {{:emep:emep-experts:readme_bcs_emep.pdf|}}
@@ Line 127: / Line 134: @@
 The Climate-Chemistry Model Initiative is currently undertaking global atmospheric chemistry reanalyses over the 1960-2010 time period (Eyring, 2014) based on the MACC City emissions (Granier et al., 2011). We propose to use the CamChem member of the ensemble (Lamarque et al., 2012) produced by Simone Tilmes at NCAR provided by Katerina Sindelarova (katerina.sindelarova@latmos.ipsl.fr) and Claire Granier (cgranier@latmos.ipsl.fr) at LATMOS/IPSL.
-The data is available at:
+The data is available as CAM4CHEM_CCMI.tar:
-http://dods.extra.cea.fr/store/colettea/EURODELTA/BOUN_COND/
+https://esgf.extra.cea.fr/thredds/catalog/store/colettea/EURODELTA/BOUN_COND/catalog.html
 Validation of this global reanalysis is ongoing, but the preliminary results are encouraging as illustrated in the Figure below  showing the ozone trend at the Mace Head station.
@@ Line 141: / Line 149: @@
 A common format for the results of modelling teams is specified in the following document
-{{:emep:emep-experts:output_format_wiki_v20150609.docx|output formats}}
+{{:emep:emep-experts:output_format_wiki_v20151123.docx|output formats}}
 Participating groups can provide either model output at the first model level, or downscalled vertically as long as the downscaling procedure is clearly documented.
+For the case of VOC output, the aggregation strategy of each modelling group is summarised in the following document
+{{:emep:emep-experts:VOC_aggregation.zip|}}
+The simulation status for each modelling group is summarised in the table below. "exp" stands for expected delivery date, the last update for each experiment is specified, although some deliveries occured earlier.
+{{ :emep:emep-experts:status_20160407.png?600 |}}
 ===== Bibliography =====