Comparing Air Quality Forecast and a Reanalysis: Improvements Due to Chemical Data Assimilation and Better NWP Forcing

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

The paper discusses the operational experience of European-scale AQ hind- and fore-casting with the SILAM dispersion model and compares the performance of the two setups. Two parallel lines of daily AQ assessment in Europe have been established: the 72 h long stand-alone forecast and a previous-day 24 h hindcast followed by a 72 h forecast. In the hindcasting mode, 3D-VAR based data assimilation is used to refine the initial fields for O3, NO2 and SO2. The standalone forecast, on the other hand, is initialized from the previous forecast without data assimilation. According to preliminary statistics, the best score improvement in the forecast is obtained for O3, while only minor or no improvement is seen for SO2 and NO2. In addition, the data assimilation of gas-phase species has a visible effect on predictions of secondary inorganic aerosols.

Keywords

Air quality forecasting Data assimilation 3D-Var 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Blond N, Vautard R (2004) Three-dimensional ozone analyses and their use for short-term ozone forecasts. J Geophys Res 109:D17303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Galperin M (2000) The approaches to correct computation of airborne pollution advection. In problems of ecological monitoring and ecosystem modelling. Gidrometeoizdat, pp 54–68Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gery M, Whitten G, Killus J, Dodge M (1989) A photochemical kinetics mechanism for urban and regional scale computer modelling. J Geophys Res 94:925–956Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parrish D, Derber J (1992) The National Meteorological Center’s spectral statistical analysis system. Mon Weather Rev 120:1747–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sofiev M (2000) A model for the evaluation of long-term airborne pollution transport at regional and continental scales. Atmos Environ 34(15):2481–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sofiev M (2002) Extended resistance analogy for construction of the vertical diffusion scheme for dispersion models. J Geophys Res Atmos 107:D12. doi:10.1029/2001JD001233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sofiev M, Galperin M, Genikhovich E (2008) Construction and evaluation of Eulerian dynamic core for the air quality and emergency modeling system SILAM. In: Borrego C, Miranda AI (eds) Air pollution modelling and its application XIX, NATO science for peace and security Series C: environmental security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 699–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sofiev M, Siljamo P, Valkama I, Ilvonen M, Kukkonen J (2006) A dispersion modelling system SILAM and its evaluation against ETEX data. Atmos Environ 40:674–685. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tombette M, Mallet V, Sportisse B (2009) PM10 data assimilation over Europe with the optimal interpolation method. Atmos Chem Phys 9:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Meteorological InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations