emep:page1:pm_underestimation

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
emep:page1:pm_underestimation [2011-08-25 09:28:38]
michaels
emep:page1:pm_underestimation [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current)
Line 8: Line 8:
  * pH dependency of SO2 ox rate \\   * pH dependency of SO2 ox rate \\ 
  * wet scavenging (in ice, scavenging rates ...)\\   * wet scavenging (in ice, scavenging rates ...)\\ 
- * emission heights (probably not important)\\ + * emission heights:\\  
 +DS:I have started this, testing different plume-rise 
 +formula together with the IIASA . Peter contributed with a subroutine to 
 +spread the emissions into flexible vertical layers also. Should all be 
 +ready soon-ish, but probably won't change things very much as you say. (probably not important)\\  
  
  * Size of vertical layers, boundary layer mixing \\   * Size of vertical layers, boundary layer mixing \\ 
Line 14: Line 18:
  * Agricultural and Industrial dust in windy, dry conditions \\   * Agricultural and Industrial dust in windy, dry conditions \\ 
  * BIC for aerosols, dust in southern Europe\\   * BIC for aerosols, dust in southern Europe\\ 
- * Wood burning emissions underestimated\\ + * Wood burning emissions underestimated:Robert is doing  a lot with Hugo as we speak, but the problem is with the "official" emissions. We can't change them, even 
 +when we know they are wrong. \\ 
 +We could change the time-series though, using a "degree-day" approach as 
 +Betrand used. That would be good, but requires some testing. I think 
 +that SNAP-2 in general should have this, and wood-burning especially, 
 +but I also suspect that wood-burning starts at a lower temperature than 
 +Betrand's 20C degree days. \\  
 * Station representativity for some specific sites (Susceptibility to inversion situations in winter?)\\ * Station representativity for some specific sites (Susceptibility to inversion situations in winter?)\\
 +* Kz, Hmix - currently our minimum mixing height is in the 2nd layer
 +(k=19). I have some test versions which allow very shallow mixing
 +heights. These cause a slight increase in surface PM, and are
 +scientifically ok I think. I can commit next week if all looks well. \\ 
 +(What I am less sure about is what we should do for Kz above Hmix. Now
 +we have zero, earlier we used critical Richardson numbers, etc. Seems
 +better to use the latter.) \\ 
 +
 +* I suggested some ideas for David H. here to work with, but that seems
 +to be progressing slowly. I'll check again on this next week. \\ 
 +
 * Ammonium nitrate formation \\ * Ammonium nitrate formation \\
 * Emission seasonality for SO2 missing\\ * Emission seasonality for SO2 missing\\
Line 21: Line 42:
 Which Analysis : Which Analysis :
  
-* Separate discussion by aerosol component +* Separate discussion by aerosol component\\ 
-* AMS measurements EUSAAR ? +* AMS measurements EUSAAR ?\\ 
-* Caliop extinction profiles for European subregions become available shortly, extinction profile in model needed,  +* Caliop extinction profiles for European subregions become available shortly, extinction profile in model needed, \\ 
-* EUCAARI aircraft measurements? +* EUCAARI aircraft measurements?\\ 
-* Seasonal and spatial bias analysis +* Seasonal and spatial bias analysis \\  
 +** When do we underestimate?? It would be good to use time to figure out 
 +if we can see patterns in the days when we underestimate compared to 
 +when we don't. Is it on very cold days, or generally for example?  Which 
 +compounds cause most of the problem? Might give a clue on whether it is 
 +meteorology of chemistry. \\  
 + 
 +===== Minutes =====
  
 + * [[emep:page2:Minutes|Minutes 26.08.2011]]
  • emep/page1/pm_underestimation.1314264518.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2022-05-31 09:23:15
  • (external edit)