1 / 12

Evaluation of Atmospheric Model Performance Across Various Flight Patterns

This analysis explores the performance of multiple atmospheric models, specifically MOCAGE, CHIMERE (LISA, ACRI), AZUR, and RAMS, in simulating ozone and NO2 distributions across different flight groups: AM, MD, PM, Land, and Sea. Key findings highlight the discrepancies in model predictions, such as overestimations for ferry flights and varying performances across flight elevations. Furthermore, the study examines the ability of models to reproduce temporal variability and the representation of background and peak values, providing a critical evaluation necessary for improving atmospheric prediction accuracy.

tameka
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Atmospheric Model Performance Across Various Flight Patterns

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mobile instruments 6 models available MOCAGE CHIMERE-LISA AZUR RAMS CHIMERE-ACRI UAM-TOTAL 67 “flights”: 12 ferry 12 Aztec 16 Merlin 21 Arat 6 Dornier Picture of the 2(3)-D distribution at a given time. Spatial more than temporal Way of bridging the gap of plume location

  2. OZONE • profils are grouped in general with one or two models out of the group • missed “flights” for every models • STD platform dependant: • overestimated for ferry (30 meters) • more or less for arat (< 1000 but sharp RS) • underestimated for aztec and merlin (more level flight) • Time resolution of the series??

  3. OZONE

  4. OZONE 5h20 7h44 9h47 12h17 9h33 13h23 11h59 15h48

  5. NO2 • simulated peaks are too strong • UAM-total really different behaviour • STD very different according to the platform : • really overestimated for arat (mainly <1000m but sharp RS) in a lesser extend in Rams and Mocage and in a greater extend for Chimere and UAM

  6. NO • mis-representation both for back-ground values and peaks • simulated series are too smooth • overestimation in Chimere (Lisa and Acri) and Azur for ferry concentrations • underestimation of the STD

  7. NO

  8. NO

  9. synthesis representation for corr,rmse and std will be really useful • analyse by flight groups : AM/MD/PM/Land/Sea • when more models, track the ressemblance (like Chimere-LISA and Azur) ; not like in MTO, Mocage doesn’t appear isolated (even for NO) • As they are identical flight pattern, exploration also of the ability of models to reproduce the inter-day variability (mean, std, max, etc)

More Related