regional production quarterly report on the daily analyses ... · emep: d50.4.2-2016q1, d50.4.4...
TRANSCRIPT
Regional ProductionQuarterly report on the daily analyses and forecasts activities, and verification of the EMEP performances
December 2015 – January 2016 – February 2016
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances |
This document has been produced in the context of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service (CAMS). The activities leading to these results have been contracted by the
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, operator of CAMS on behalf of the
European Union (Delegation Agreement signed on 11/11/2014). All information in this
document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is
fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and
liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission and the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has no liability in respect of this document, which is
merely representing the authors view.
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances |
Quarterly report on the dailyanalyses and forecasts activities, and verification ofthe EMEP performances
December 2015 – January 2016 – February 2016
MET NORWAY (A. Benedictow, M. Gauss)
METEO-FRANCE (M. Pithon, M. Plu, J. Parmentier,
J. Arteta, S. Guidotti, N. Assar)
Date: 04/05/2016
REF.:
CAMS50_2015SC1_D50.3.2.EMEP-2016Q1_201605CAMS50_2015SC1_D50.3.4.EMEP-2016Q1_201605
CAMS50_2015SC1_D50.5.1.EMEP-2016Q1_201605
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Contents:
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances |
1. Executive Summary.........................................................................................42. The EMEP model (MET Norway).........................................................................5Product portfolio..................................................................................................5Availability statistics.............................................................................................5
Use for observations for data assimilation...............................................................73. Verification report..........................................................................................10Verification of NRT forecasts................................................................................10Verification of NRT analyses................................................................................15
Analysis of EMEP performances for the quarter......................................................19
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
1. Executive Summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS, www.copernicus-atmosphere.eu) is establishing the core global and regional atmospheric environmental
service delivered as a component of Europe's Copernicus programme. The regionalforecasting service provides daily 4-days forecasts of the main air quality species andanalyses of the day before, from 7 state-of-the-art atmospheric chemistry models andfrom the median ensemble calculated from the 7 model forecasts. The regional service
also provides posteriori reanalyses using the latest validated observation datasetavailable for assimilation.
This report covers the deliverables related to Near Real Time Production (NRT) for
EMEP: D50.4.2-2016Q1, D50.4.4-2016Q1, D50.5.1-2016Q1, for the quarter December2015 – January 2016 – February 2016. Verification is done against in-situ surfaceobservations; they are described in the report D50.1.2-2016Q1, that will be deliveredshortly. The verification of analyses is done against non assimilated observations.
Compared to previous quarters, there have not been any significant changes in modelperformance, neither to the better nor to the worse. The slight changes are assumed tobe due to different meteorological conditions.
Delivery rates were slightly lower than during the summer period, but remain above95%. Recently, MET Norway organized an internal meeting on how to improve stabilityeven further, and it is expected that the delivery rate will be well above 95% in future
reporting periods.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 4
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
2. The EMEP model (MET Norway)
Product portfolio
Name Forecast Analysis
Description Forecast at surface, 50m,
250m, 500m, 1000m, 2000m,
3000m, 5000m above ground
Analysis at the surface
Available for users at 2:00 UTC 08:45 UTC for the day before
Species O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10,
NO, NH3, NMVOC, PANs,
Birch pollen at surface during
season
O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10,
NO
Time span 0-96h, hourly 0-24h for the day before,
hourly
Availability statistics
The statistics below describe the ratio of days for which the EMEP model outputs wereavailable on time to be included in the ENSEMBLE fields (analyses and forecasts) that
are computed at METEO-FRANCE. They are based on the following schedule for theprovision at METEO-FRANCE of:
- forecasts data before: 05:30 UTC for D0-D1 (up to 48h), 07:30 UTC for D2-D3 (from49h to 96h)
- analyses data: before 11:00 UTC
These schedules have been set to meet the IT requirements for ENSEMBLE products(no later than 8 UTC for 0-48h, 10 UTC for 49-96h and 12 UTC for analyses).
Indicators:
Availability_model_Forecast
Quarterly basis
D0:96%
D1:96%
D2:95%
D3:96%
Availability _model_Analysis D:98%
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 5
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
During this quarter, the following issues have been encountered by the EMEPproduction system:
Date Problem description
(origin, effects)
Impact
on production
18/12/2015 NRT boundary conditions was
missing from dissemination
No analysis and forecast
results available for ENSEMBLE
calculation
20/01/2016 Forecast results late due to an
error in a preprocessing script
modification
EMEP results arrived too late
for ENSEMBLE calculation
23/01/2016 Post processing job for
analysis was not started due
to missing links
EMEP analysis results non
available for ENSEMBLE
calculation
04/02/2016 Forecasts results late due to a
change of the timing in the
post processing to handle the
new interpolated fields
EMEP forecast results arrived
too late for participating to
ENSEMBLE calculation
11/02/2016 Issue with the provision of one
forecast step to CRPU due to
post processing job running
out of time, caused by change
to new interpolated fields
Some EMEP results missing
(D2 only)
12/02/2016 Error in post processing script
modification
EMEP forecast missing for
ENSEMBLE calculation
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 6
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Use for observations for data assimilation
Day
Use of observation for EMEP
December
O3 NO2 NO SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
1 1,546 1,623
2 1,448 1,633
3 1,465 1,595
4 1,609 1,741
5 1,447 1,500
6 1,504 902
7 1,444 1,541
8 1,503 1,599
9 1,608 1,697
10 1,594 1,657
11 1,534 576
12 1,527 1,650
13 1,525 1,571
14 600 1,574
15 1,617 1,699
16 1,527 1,611
17 623 547
18 1,463 862
19 675 673
20 1,471 1,644
21 661 1,553
22 1,579 1,719
23 1,530 1,572
24 1,437 1,511
25 1,490 1,528
26 115 67
27 0 0
28 112 97
29 114 92
30 127 104
31 126 101
average 1,130 1,169
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 7
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Day
Use of observation for EMEP
January
O3 NO2 NO SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
1 221 184
2 318 259
3 17 13
4 623 675
5 1,091 1,022
6 1,535 1,607
7 238 169
8 1,426 1,441
9 251 185
10 0 0
11 490 397
12 1,087 1,056
13 1,588 1,712
14 1,577 1,699
15 669 672
16 460 384
17 454 384
18 1,661 1,820
19 0 0
20 1,640 1,778
21 1,629 1,779
22 1,628 1,786
23 1,599 1,679
24 1,560 1,662
25 1,632 1,769
26 833 894
27 1,568 1,756
28 1,584 1,745
29 1,622 1,783
30 1,541 1,659
31 1,555 1,686
average 1,035 1,086
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 8
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Day
Use of observation for EMEP
February
O3 NO2 NO SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
1 1,575 1,746
2 449 305
3 1,615 1,784
4 1,566 1,743
5 1,582 1,743
6 1,583 1,701
7 1,553 1,665
8 1,559 1,679
9 1,525 1,646
10 1,474 1,645
11 1,515 1,683
12 1,418 1,590
13 1,349 1,505
14 1,387 1,570
15 1,452 1,623
16 1,478 1,687
17 1,384 1,605
18 0 0
19 0 0
20 1,406 1,581
21 1,417 1,576
22 1,434 1,639
23 1,287 1,453
24 1,413 1,592
25 1,428 1,634
26 1,067 1,233
27 38 8
28 37 8
29 0 0
average 1,172 1,298
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 9
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
3. Verification report
This verification report covers the period December 2015 – January 2016 – February2016. The EMEP skill scores are successively presented for four pollutants: ozone, NO2,PM10 and PM2.5. The skill is shown for the entire forecast horizon from 0 to 96h(hourly values), allowing to evaluate the entire diurnal cycle and the evolution of
performance from day 0 to day 3. The forecasts and the analyses cover a largeEuropean domain (25°W-45°E, 30°N-70°N). The statistical scores that are reported arethe root-mean-square error, the modified mean bias and the correlation. The surfaceobservations that are acquired by METEO-FRANCE and used for verification are
described in D50.1.2-2016Q1, that will be delivered shortly.
Verification of NRT forecasts
The following figures present, for each pollutant (ozone, NO2, PM10, PM2.5):
- in the upper-left panel, the root-mean square error of daily maximum (for ozone and
NO2) or of daily mean (PM10) for the first-day forecasts with regards to surfaceobservations, for every quarter since DJF2014/2015, a target reference value isindicated as an orange line,
- in the upper-right panel, the root-mean square error of pollutant concentration
forecasts with regards to surface observations as a function of forecast term,
- in the lower-left panel, the modified mean bias of pollutant concentration forecastswith regards to surface observations as a function of forecast term,
- in the lower-right panel, the correlation of pollutant concentration forecasts with
regards to surface observations as a function of forecast term.
The graphics show the performance of EMEP (black curves) and of the ENSEMBLE (bluecurves).
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 10
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP forecasts: ozone skill scores against data from representative sites,period December 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The RMSE of EMEP meets the target value. It is very similar compared to the previouswinter period DJF 2014/15, and about the same as that of the ENSEMBLE. The
maximum RMSE occurs in the morning at +10h and minimum around +14h.
EMEP has about the same MMB values, except a little higher values in the night (~0.05µg/m3) compared to the previous winter period. MMB is highest in the morning at
+10h and minimum at +16h. The MMB of EMEP is lower than that of the ENSEMBLEduring most of the forecast time.
The correlation values of EMEP have increased (~0.02 µg/m3) since the previous
period, and especially around +16h. The EMEP correlation values are lowest aroundnoon and degrade gradually with forecast length. The EMEP correlation is very similarto that of the ENSEMBLE except around noon, when it is lower.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 11
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP forecasts: NO2 skill scores against data from representative sites, periodDecember 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
EMEP has generally higher (~0.1 µg/m3) MMB compared to the previous winter period.In agreement with the ENSEMBLE, EMEP has largest underestimations at +11h. EMEP
underestimates slightly less than the ENSEMBLE during daytime and slightly moreduring night.
Compared to the previous winter period the correlation values of EMEP are very
similar, except at +19h when they are higher by about 0.02 µg/m3. Lowest correlationvalues of EMEP are at +11h. EMEP is in phase with the ENSEMBLE, with only a slightlylower correlation.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 12
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP forecasts: PM10 skill scores against data from representative sites,period December 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The MMB of EMEP is overestimating less in the morning at +7h and underestimatingmore in the evening at +20h compared to the previous winter period. EMEP is in phase
with the ENSEMBLE and underestimates less during daytime.
The correlation of EMEP is lower (~0.02 µg/m3) compared to the previous winterperiod. In line with the ENSEMBLE, EMEP has its highest correlation at +7h and its
lowest at +11h. Around noon and at midnight the deviation from the ENSEMBLE islargest.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 13
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP forecasts: PM2.5 skill scores against data from representative sites,period December 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The MMB of EMEP is overestimating less and underestimating more, compared to theprevious winter period. In line with the ENSEMBLE, EMEP has its highest
overestimation at +7h and its highest underestimation at +21h. EMEP isunderestimating more than the ENSEMBLE during daytime.
The correlation of EMEP is higher (~ 0.03 µg/m3) compared to the previous winter
period. EMEP is in phase with the ENSEMBLE and the forecast degradation with time issmaller compared to the previous period. The correlations of EMEP and the ENSEMBLEare quite similar, with highest values in the morning around +9h and lowest values inthe afternoon.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 14
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Verification of NRT analyses
The following figures present, for each pollutant (ozone, NO2, PM10):
- in the upper-left panel, the root-mean square error of daily maximum (for ozone andNO2) or of daily mean (PM10) for the analyses (solid line) and for the first-day forecasts
(dashed line) with regards to surface observations, for every quarter sinceDJF2014/2015, a target reference value is indicated as an orange line,
- in the upper-right panel, the root-mean square error of pollutant concentration of theanalyses (solid line) and of the first-day forecasts (dashed line), with regards to
surface observations as a function of forecast term,
- in the lower-left panel, the modified mean bias of pollutant concentration forecasts ofthe analyses (solid line) and of the first-day forecasts (dashed line), with regards tosurface observations as a function of forecast term,
- in the lower-right panel, the correlation of pollutant concentration of the analyses(solid line) and of the first-day forecasts (dashed line), with regards to surfaceobservations as a function of forecast term.
The graphics show the performances of EMEP (black curves) and of the ENSEMBLE(blue curves). The superposition of the analysis scores (solid lines) and of the forecastscores (dashed lines) computed over the same observation dataset is helpful to assessthe added value of data assimilation.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 15
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP analyses: ozone skill scores against data from representative sites,period December 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The MMB is reduced for EMEP AN compared to FC, except at +6h and +16h whereunderestimation is larger for EMEP AN than the overestimation for FC. But the largest
overestimation of EMEP FC around +10h is reduced by about 0.04 µg/m3.
The correlation values of EMEP AN are higher compared to the EMEP FC. By and large,the improvement due to data assimilation of ozone is clear, though not quite as large
as for the ENSEMBLE.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 16
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP analyses: NO2 skill scores against data from representative sites, periodDecember 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The EMEP AN MMB is underestimating less than the EMEP FC. Largest improvement isfound in the afternoon and during night time.
Correlation values of EMEP AN are higher than of EMEP FC, especially in evening andmorning hours. The improvement of EMEP AN is very low between +12h and +17h.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 17
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
EMEP analyses: PM10 skill scores against data from representative sites,period December 2015 - January 2016 - February 2016
The RMSE of EMEP AN meets the target value by a slightly wider margin than the EMEPFC. The EMEP AN has largest improvements of RMSE values in the afternoon.
The MMB is overestimating more for EMEP AN compared to FC, especially in night time.Largest overestimations are found during morning hours.
Correlation values of EMEP AN are generally lower than of EMEP FC, particularly in themorning and afternoon. This situation will improve when PM is assimilated later thisyear.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 18
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service
Analysis of EMEP performances for the quarter
The performance of the EMEP model is satisfactory for this period and is in line with theperformance in earlier periods, with some improvement for ozone and NO2 and a littleworse for PM10 and PM2.5 performance compared to the previous winter period. Thesedifferences can probably be explained by meteorological conditions. However, none of
the changes in performance are considerable. Assimilation of particulate matter in thefuture should improve the performance of EMEP AN as compared to EMEP FC.
Qr. report on daily analyses and forecasts activities, verification of the EMEP performances | 19