Abstract

Abstract. This article describes the IFS-AER aerosol module used operationally in the Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) cycle 45R1, operated by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in the framework of the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Services (CAMS). We describe the different parameterizations for aerosol sources, sinks, and its chemical production in IFS-AER, as well as how the aerosols are integrated in the larger atmospheric composition forecasting system. The focus is on the entire 45R1 code base, including some components that are not used operationally, in which case this will be clearly specified. This paper is an update to the Morcrette et al. (2009) article that described aerosol forecasts at the ECMWF using cycle 32R2 of the IFS. Between cycles 32R2 and 45R1, a number of source and sink processes have been reviewed and/or added, notably increasing the complexity of IFS-AER. A greater integration with the tropospheric chemistry scheme of the IFS has been achieved for the sulfur cycle and for nitrate production. Two new species, nitrate and ammonium, have also been included in the forecasting system. Global budgets and aerosol optical depth (AOD) fields are shown, as is an evaluation of the simulated particulate matter (PM) and AOD against observations, showing an increase in skill from cycle 40R2, used in the CAMS interim ReAnalysis (CAMSiRA), to cycle 45R1.

Highlights

  • Ambient air pollution is a major public health issue, with effects ranging from increased hospital admissions to increased risk of premature death

  • With a faster life cycle and reduced concentrations above the planetary boundary layer, the fraction of the mass mixing ratio increments distributed to sulfate during the data assimilation stage has been generally reduced in the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Services (CAMS) reanalysis and in cycle 43R3 and beyond, leading to an important decrease in the total burden of sulfate in the CAMS reanalysis compared to the CAMS interim ReAnalysis, as well as in the operational cycles 43R3 and beyond

  • Simulations of near-surface PM2.5 and PM10 are evaluated against observations from two regional networks: the AirNow network, which gathers observations mostly over the United States and Canada, and AirBase, the European Air Quality Database operated by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which gathers observations over Europe

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ambient air pollution is a major public health issue, with effects ranging from increased hospital admissions to increased risk of premature death. Besides the ECMWF, there are currently at least eight centres producing and disseminating near -real-time operational global aerosol forecasting products: the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the NOAA National Centre for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), the US Navy Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Centre (NREL/FNMOC), the NASA Global Modelling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), the UK Met Office, Météo-France, the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), and the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI). These groups are all members of the International Cooperative for Aerosol Prediction (ICAP; Sessions et al, 2015; Xian et al, 2019), which uses data provided by these centres in the ICAP Multi-Model Ensemble (ICAP-MME). Of simulations against aerosol optical depth (AOD) observations from the AERONET network (Holben et al, 1998) and against European and North American PM observations

General description of IFS and IFS-AER
Atmospheric composition in the IFS
Main characteristics of IFS-AER
Coupling to the chemistry
Operational configuration
Aerosol sources
Organic matter and black carbon
Sea salt
U130 exp
Sulfur dioxide and sulfate
Nitrate and ammonium
Gas-to-particle partitioning
Heterogeneous production
Ageing and hygroscopic growth
Dry deposition
R05 dry deposition velocities
ZH01 dry deposition velocities
Dry deposition of sulfur dioxide
Sedimentation
Wet deposition
Optical properties
Organic matter
Black carbon
Mineral dust
PM formulae
Configuration
Budgets
Simulated AOD and PM
Evaluation
Summary
Evaluation against AERONET
Evaluation against PM observations
Comparison with IFS-AER cycle 40R2
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.