1. Title Effect of horizontal resolution on PM calculations:
EMEP model vs. EMEP measurements
On behalf of MSC-W presented by Svetlana Tsyro
TFMM 10-th meeting, Paris, June 2008

2. Outline
Model runs’ setup for different grid resolution: 50x50, 25x25 and 10x10 km2
Calculation results (any difference?)
Comparison with regional BG observation
Summary and outlook
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

3. EMEP model runs for 2006
Meteorology: HIRLAM NWP model 0.2x0.2º and 0.1x0.1º spherical rotated coordinates interpolated to EMEP polar-stereographic (PS)
Emissions: EMEP (CEIP), distribution as EMEP or based on TNO (ca 7.5 km)
Meteorology
Emissions
50x50 km2
HIRLAM 0.2x0.2º -> PS 50km
EMEP
EMEP & TNO distrib
25x25 km2
HIRLAM 0.2x0.2º -> PS 25km
10x10 km2
HIRLAM 0.1x0.1º -> PS 10km
Fine and coarse particles are distinguished in order to account for the different dry and wet removal rates.
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

4. Concentration ratio: 10 / 50 (EMEPem_TNOdis)
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

5. Concentration ratio: EMEP_TNO_10 / EMEP_50
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

6. Do we see impovement in the model performance for finer resolution compared to observations?
EMEP50
TNO 50
TNO 25
TNO 10
PM10
Bias
- 34
- 41 R
0.46
0.49
0.54
0.56
PM2.5
- 36
- 35
0.66
0.67
0.73
0.71
SIA
- 37 (-32)
- 37 (-33)
- 33 (-28)
- 34 (-29)
0.87 (0.49)
0.88 (0.7)
0.87 (0.45)
0.88 (0.51) Na
- 4
- 11
0.83
0.88
0.89
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

7. Scatter-plots for PM10 for 2006
50x50
10x10
The model reproduce the regional PM gradients somewhat better when using finer grids (and TNO emission distribution)
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

8. PM10 with TNO emission distribution
Bias
Correlation
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

9. PM2.5 with TNO emission distribution
Bias
Correlation
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

10. PM10 with EMEP-50 and TNO-25 and 10
Bias
Correlation
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

11. PM2.5 with EMEP-50 and TNO-25 and 10
Bias
Correlation
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

12. Improvement for Payerne
Example:
Improvement for Payerne
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

13. with windblown dust w/o windblown dust
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

14. BIAS for PM10: June 2006 Montelibretti Melpitz Birkenes
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

15. Correlation: Montelibretti, June 2006
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

16. Correlation for PM components:
Birkenes, June 2006
Melpitz, June 2006
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

17. Main findings Overall Bias - small or no improvement
Spatial correlation - certain improvement more for PM10/PM2.5 than for SIA – due to PPM?
Larger improvement from 50 to 25 than from 25 to 10 km
Individual sites
Bias - small changes, both +/-
Correlation – variable (btw sites and countries)
PM components (3 sites) – no clear pattern BIAS – some improvement, but for diff. reasons CORR – variable btw sites, components, resolutions
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

18. Outlook
Look at the effect of improved resolution on model performance for PM for rural/sub- urbane sites (AirBase)
Look more for explanations of the changes in the model performance (due to emissions, meteorology)
HIRLAM 20 vs performance
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no