1. QUANTIFY Activity 3:Large chemistry modeling Status report, month 30 (Athens, 21 september) 3.1 Model evaluation and current impact 3.1.1 Evaluation of multi-model performance against observations 3.1.2 Current chemical composition change by transport emissions 3.1.3 Effective emissions 3.1 Process studies 3.2.1 Precipitation impact on sulphur and nitrogen compounds 3.2.2 Aircraft induced sulphur impact on UTLS ozone 3.2.3 Impact of cirrus clouds 3.3 Future impact and mitigation options 3.3.1 Future chemical composition change by transport emissions 3.3.2 Impact of future climate change 3.3.3 Possible mitigation strategies

2. WP3.1.1 Evaluation of multi-model performance against observations First report on model performance delivered (D3.1.1.9, month 25) Additional comparison of model outputs to SPURT, presented at EGU Next/final deliverable: Second report D3.1.10, month 36) New results POET CO/NMVOC emissions vs. EDGAR Fast Track 2000 (POET NMVOC factor 2 higher than other emission inventories over polluted regions such as Europe) NO: moderate to good correlation in Febr (0.7-0.9), less in July (0.5-0.6) NO (NOy in some models) underestimated in middle/upper troposphere. Reasons under investigation

3. Model evaluation against SPURT observations 15 Feb 200316 Feb 2003

4. Model evaluation against SPURT observations 09 Jul 200310 Jul 2003

5. Model evaluation against SPURT observations SPURT February and July 2003 Mean Biases Temperature biases (K) Chemical species (%) NO y * 1 = NO x +HNO 3 +PAN (OSLO CTM2, pTOMCAT, LMDzINCA) NO y *(MESSy) = NOy* 1 +NO 3 +2*N 2 O 5 NO y *(TM4) = NO y

6. WP3.1.2 Current impact of transport modes Models: TM4, Oslo CTM2, p-TOMCAT, LMDZ-INCA, E5/MESSY, E39/C, New: MOCAGE base runs Report on current impact delivered (D3.1.2.9, month 25) 2 papers in preparation: Hoor et al., Caro et al. (co-authorship A1 in discussion) Runs with final emissions (esp. road traffic differs) will be redone in conjunction with future impact, to be finished month 36, report month 48 SO2 simulations introduced in last DOW by MPI-C: the impact seems to be too weak … Mocage T42 NOx Jan 2003

7. BackgroundAircraftShipsRoadTransport TM4 p-TOMCAT E39c (1990s) Oslo CTM2 LMDz-INCA Ozone July (monthly mean zonal mean 2003)

8. JanuaryJuly Mean sensitivity of boundary layer OH (800-1000 hPa) scaled to 100% to perturbation from road (upper line) and ship (lower panels) in % Road Ship

9. Mean sensitivity of OH to aircraft emissions scaled to 100 % January July

10. WP3.1.3 Effective emissions Parameterisation developed by CERFACS Parametrisation described in CERFACS technical report (Act. 2) Implementation in LMDz-INCA described in report (Caro and Cariolle, July 2007). Deliverable Act 3/2? Status of parameters for ship emissions? Can this be easily done in OsloCTM2, TM4? Does this have high priority? Next deliverables: Model simulations (month 34), Report (month 36) Aircraft effect Plume effect

11. WP3.2.1 Precipitation impact Tg(N)/yrEmissionDry depositionWet depositionTotal deposition Aviation0.670.170.530.70 Ships4.42.12.34.4 Road transport6.93.53.46.9 Sum transport125.86.212 All sources243660 NOy deposition in LMDZ-INCA Model simulations: done Analysis largely done: still problems with scaling/closure of output from some models Additionnal output from MOCAGE Report D3.1.3.8 (month 28) further delayed to departure of KNMI postdoc in Jan 2007 : expected in month 33

12. WP3.2.2 Aircraft induced sulphur impact Start month 33 Preliminary simulations have been performed by UCAM. 2000 fleet (no NO X emission)

13. WP3.2.3 Impact of cirrus Several reaction rates (J MGLY, k OH-CO, J HCHO, etc.) have been significantly changed in the TM4 code according new recommendations. Report on new parameterisation (D3.2.3.1, month 30) delayed due to departure of KNMI postdoc Expected delay:at least 5 months

14. WP3.3.1 Future impact & WP3.3.3 Mitigation options After the cuts in the Quantify budget, the development of mitigation scenarios was removed from the work plan of Activity 1. On a splinter meeting between Activity 1 and Activity 3 in May 2007 during the ATTICA workshop it was decided that Activity 3 would consider four SRES marker scenarios for which Activity 1 is providing gridded emission files. These are: 1) A1B: "Global Economy" 2) A2: "Fragmented Economy" 3) B1: "Global Ecology" 4) B2: "Business as usual" Based on these gridded files, time slice runs will be done in Activity 3 for the years 2050 and 2100 (and possibly 2025). Climate models will run 10-year periods to average out interannual variability, while CTMs will use 2003 meteorology as in the base case experiments. The impacts of the different transport sectors will be investigated and compared to the results for the base case study (Hoor et al., 2007)

15. WP3.3.1 Future impact & WP3.3.3 Mitigation options In addition it is planned to consider the effects of increased use of hydrogen as a fuel, taking into account emissions from hydrogen production. This is done in collaboration with Kristin Rypdal at Cicero (Norway). Status: Future (+ new current) chemical perturbation runs planned for month 36/42 (Please remove preliminary ones (D3.3.1.2-8, month 27) and preliminary report (D3.3.1.9, month 30) from deliverables list). Report D3.3.1.14 due month 44. Report describing the set-up for mitigation options (D3.3.3.1) planned month 30 ! Model simulations to be finished month 46. Preferably, future emission data sets need to be made available to A3 modelling groups a.s.a.p.! Do we need to reschedule?

16. WP3.3.2 Impact of future climate change Set-up for simulations has been fixed. Report describing the set-up (D3.3.2.1, month 28) is missing. Simulations: A:Meteorology/climate for 2000 and all emissions for 2050 BR:Meteorology/climate for 2000 and all emissions for 2050 but 5 % reduction of emissions of one representative sector C: Same as A but with meteorology/climate for 2050. DR: Same as BR but with meteorology/climate for 2050.

17. Conclusions (personal view) Act 3 is experiencing several delays due to departure of postdocs, dependencies on other activities, overambitous DOW  Focus efforts on main questions (e.g. future impact), but deal with all WPs Act 3 is/will provide very interesting results !

18. The END?