1. Aerosol simulation with coupled meteorology-radiation- chemistry model WRF/Chem over Europe

2. OUTLINE 1.Implementation of an invetory of anthropogenic emissions over Europe. 2.Validation of results against ground observations of meteo, gas and aerosol 3.Preliminary test of WRF/Chem direct and indirect aerosol effects

3. 1.Total annual emissions from EMEP: CO, NH 3, SO 2, NO x,  VOC, PM 2. Correspondence among emitted and model species CO  CO NOx  NOx … PM  20% Aitken, 80% Accumlation 3. Speciation of  VOCs [Passant, 2002]  VOC VOC 1 VOC 2 VOC 350 … ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS AGGREGATION IN 17 WRF/CHEM MODEL SPECIES WITH REACTIVITY WEIGHTING FACTOR PRINCIPLE [Middleton et al., Atmo. Env. 1990]

4. EMISSIONS IN A SUMMER WEEKDAY NOxVOCsPM25 RURAL URBAN

5. Period: Jan-Feb and Jul-Aug 2007. Resolution: 30 Km, 28 vertical levels (p_top = 50 hPa, 15-16 Km). Initial and boundary meteorological conditions: ECMWF analysis (every 6 hours). Initial and boundary chemical conditions: climatological profiles. Dust, sea-salt and biogenic emissions are included. BASELINE SIMULATIONS SETUP PHYSICAL PROCESSWRF/CHEM OPTION MICROPHYSICLIN LONGWAWERRTM SHORTWAWEGODDARD SURFACE LAYERMONIN-OBUKHOV LAND SURFACENOAH LSM PBLMYNN LEVEL 2.5 PBL CUMULUS CLOUDSGRELL-DEVENYI PHOTOLYSISFAST-J GAS CHEMISTRY: RADM2 AEROSOL: MADE/SORGAM

6. WRF/Chem vs NOAA: HOURLY TEMPERATURE SUMMER WINTER R 2 =0.80 R 2 =0.88 Overestimation of minima Underestimation of maxima

7. WRF/Chem vs NOAA: HOURLY RH SUMMER WINTER R 2 =0.73 R 2 =0.66 The daily cycle is anticipated The minima are overestimated

8. WRF/Chem vs NOAA: HOURLY WIND SPEED SUMMER WINTER R 2 =0.78 R 2 =0.88 The maxima are overestimated

9. WRF/Chem vs AIRBASE: HOURLY OZONE SUMMER WINTER The full observed range is not well reproduced R 2 =0.68 R 2 =0.85 Underestimation of minima and maxima Underestimation of maxima and overstimation of minima

10. WRF/Chem vs AIRBASE: HOURLY NO2 SUMMER WINTER R 2 =0.60 R 2 =0.51 Daily cycle and high extreme values are underpredicted Nighttime maxima are overestimated Daily minima are underestimated

11. WRF/Chem vs EMEP: DAILY PM2.5 SUMMER WINTER R 2 =0.70 R 2 =0.29 Underestimation by 30% Extreme values are underestimated by a factor 3

12. WRF/Chem vs EMEP: Aerosol Inorganic Speciation WINTER SUMMER Nitrate is overestimated by 40% and sulphate is underestimated by a factor 3 The total sum is underpredicted by 25% and sulphate has a negative bias of about 40%

13. PRELIMINARY RESULTS WITH DIRECT AND INDIRECT AEROSOL EFFECTS Consistency of simulated aerosol field with aerosol optical depth and cloud condensation nuclei

14. EFFECT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT FORCING BASELINEΔ DIRECTΔ DIRECT+ INDIRECT IMPCAT ON SHORTWAWE RADIATION FLUX Up to ±15% CLOUD OPTICAL DEPTH Up to ±50%

15. BASELINE PBL HEIGTH EFFECT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT FORCING Δ DIRECTΔ DIRECT+ INDIRECT TEMPERATURE AT 2m Up to ±3% Up to ±15%

16. CONCLUSIONS An anthropogenic emission inventory for Europe has been implemented into WRF/Chem The validation against ground observations reveal that: –Meteorology is well simulated. We have a negative tempereture bias in summer and a positive wind bias in winter –Ozone mean daily cycle is well simulated, but full variability is not reproduced –PM2.5 has a good correlation in winter and is underestimated by about 30% Preliminary tests on aerosol radiation-cloud feedback reveal a significant sensitivity of the model to indirect effects.

17. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!

18. THE WRF/CHEM MODEL 2. Validation of results against ground observations of meteo, gas and aerosol 3. Some preliminary test of WRF/Chem direct and indirect aerosol effects 1. Implementation of an invetory of anthropogenic emissions over Europe. [Grell et al., Atmo. Env., 2005]

19. 1.Total annual emissions from EMEP: CO, NH3, SO2, NOx,  VOC, PM 2.Speciation of  VOCs [Passant, 2002] 3. Correspondence among emitted and model species CO  CO NOx  NOx … PM  20% PM fine, 80% PM coarse VOC i  ???  VOC VOC 1 VOC 2 VOC 350 … ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS AGGREGATION IN WRF/CHEM MODEL SPECIES WITH REACTIVITY WEIGHTING FACTOR PRINCIPLE [Middleton et al., Atmo. Env. 1990]

20. AGGREGATION OF VOC EMISSIONS: FROM 350 TO 17 VOC 1 VOC 2 VOC 3 VOC 4 … VOC 100 … VOC 350 VOC EMISSION CLASSES (32) CAT 1 CAT 2 CAT 3 … CAT 32 MODEL VOCs IN RADM2 (17) MOD 1 MOD 2 MOD 3 … MOD 17 RWF 1 RWF 2 RWF 3 RWF 4 RWF 350 RWF 100 RWF’ 3 RWF 3 RWF 2 RWF’ 1 RWF 1 [Middleton et al., Atmo. Env. 1990]

21. AEROSOL-RADIATION-MICROPHYSICS INTERACTION DIRECT FORCING [Fast et al. 2006]: Calculated Aerosol Number Distribution Mie Theory in WRF/Chem: Aerosol Optical Properties over 4 wawelengths INDIRECT FORCING [Chapman et al. 2009]: ShortWawe Radiation Scheme Cloud Droplet Number from Activated Aerosol (prognostic treatment) Resuspension Cloud optical depth

22. MM5/Chem vs WRF/Chem O3: r MM5/ChemO3: r WRF/Chem Improved in ozone forecast [Grell et al., Atmo. Env., 2005]

23. INTERACTION BETEWEEN THE COMPONENTS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM THAT AFFECT CLIMATE

24. THE NEED OF A COUPLED MODEL: METEOROLOGY AND CHEMISTRY INTERACT! Same transport scheme, same grid and same physical schemes for the “sub-grid” processes. Same time-step. Not requires any spatial and temporal interpolation. There are the equations that describe the radiation-aerosols-clouds interaction.

25. E’ necessario anche: 1.inserire modulazione temporale (mensile e oraria) 2. interpolazione spaziale sul dominio di simulazione 3.Conversione da formato netCDF a binario ALGORITHM DEVELOPED FOR ANTROPOGENIC EMISSIONS OF WRF/Chem

26. VERTICAL PROFILE OF EMISSIONS 1.Energy production 2.Industrial combustion 3.Waste treatment 1. Industrial processes 2. Lavorazione petrolio 3. Solvents 4. Trasports 1.Energy production 2.Industrial combustion Central Italy, Spain Nord Italy Nord Europe