Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
De Meij, A., Krol, M., Dentener, F., Vignati, E., Cuvelier, C., and Thunis, P., The sensitivity of
aerosol in Europe to two different emission inventories and temporal distribution of
emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4287-4309, 2006.
Haywood, J.M., Ramaswamy, V., Global sensitivity studies of the direct radiative forcing due to
anthropogenic sulfate and black carbon aerosols. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 6043-6058, 1998.
Kaufman, Y.J., Tanré, D., and Boucher, O., A satellite view of aerosols in the climate system,
Nature, Vol. 419, 12 September 2002.
Menut L., I. Coll and S. Cautenet, Impact of meteorological data resolution on the forecasted
ozone concentrations during the ESCOMPTE IOP 2a and 2b, Atmospheric Research -
ESCOMPTE Special Issue, 74, 139-159, 2005.
Moshammer, H., Neuberger, M., The active surface of suspended particles as a predictor of lung
function and pulmonary symptoms in Austrian school children. Atmos. Environ., 37, 1737-
1744, 2003.
Stull, R., An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.
5. Questions and Answers
Sven-Erik Gryning:
The measurements did have a different wind rose than the
model locations. The measurements represent local conditions only and model
results a representation of the grid average. At low wind speeds for an area as
Varese, the wind characteristics can be expected to very geographically and the
meteorological stations will represent local conditions only.
Answer:
It is very true that the modeled calculated meteorological parameters
represent the average of a grid cell (5 × 5 km in this study) and that the
meteorological measurements represents the reality of that location and time.
However, when the observations are influenced by tunneling effects (buildings)
and large trees, one can should be careful in using this data for model com-
parisons. The wind roses presented in the presentation for Ispra are taken from
two measurement stations at the Joint Research Centre premises (300 m
distant) and show complete different results. One set of data was clearly influ-
enced by the tunneling effects and was therefore not representative for the area
and not useful for model comparison.
S. Andreani-Aksoyoglu:
Are PM10 results with CHIMERE/MM5 always higher
than CHIMERE/WRF in January, when you look at individual days?
Answer:
Yes, however the differences for other days is around a factor 1.3. The
monthly mean difference between CHIMERE/MM5 and CHIMERE/WRF is
higher (1.6), because between 14 and 18 January much more NO3- aerosol by
MM5 is formed due to the lack of cloud liquid water, which causes higher peak
of NO3- than by WRF.
Peter Builtjes:
Is the conclusion valid that for this case the combination
CHIMERE/MM5 is superior to the combination CHIMERE/WRF?
