% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Sofiev:828163,
author = {Sofiev, Mikhail and Ritenberga, Olga and Albertini, Roberto
and Arteta, Joaquim and Belmonte, Jordina and Bonini, Maira
and Celenk, Sevcan and Damialis, Athanasios and Douros, John
and Elbern, Hendrik and Friese, Elmar and Galan, Carmen and
Gilles, Oliver and Hrga, Ivana and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and
Krajsek, Kai and Parmentier, Jonathan and Plu, Matthieu and
Prank, Marje and Robertson, Lennart and Steensen, Birthe
Marie and Thibaudon, Michel and Segers, Arjo and
Stepanovich, Barbara and Valdebenito, Alvaro M. and Vira,
Julius and Vokou, Despoina},
title = {{M}ulti-model ensemble simulations of olive pollen
distribution in {E}urope in 2014},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics / Discussions},
volume = {},
issn = {1680-7375},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-02131},
pages = {1 - 32},
year = {2017},
abstract = {A 6-models strong European ensemble of Copernicus
Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) was run through the
season of 2014 computing the olive pollen dispersion in
Europe. The simulations have been compared with observations
in 6 countries, members of the European Aeroallergen
Network. Analysis was performed for individual models, the
ensemble mean and median, and for a dynamically optimized
combination of the ensemble members obtained via fusion of
the model predictions with observations. The models,
generally reproducing the olive season of 2014, showed
noticeable deviations from both observations and each other.
In particular, the season start was reported too early, by 8
days but for some models the error mounted to almost two
weeks. For the season end, the disagreement between the
models and the observations varied from a nearly perfect
match up to two weeks too late. A series of sensitivity
studies performed to understand the origin of the
disagreements revealed crucial role of ambient temperature,
especially systematic biases in its representation by
meteorological models. A simple correction to the heat sum
threshold eliminated the season shift but its validity in
other years remains to be checked. The short-term features
of the concentration time series were reproduced better
suggesting that the precipitation events and cold/warm
spells, as well as the large-scale transport were
represented rather well. Ensemble averaging led to more
robust results. The best skill scores were obtained with
data fusion, which used the previous-days observations to
identify the optimal weighting coefficients of the
individual model forecasts. Such combinations were tested
for the forecasting period up to 4 days and shown to remain
nearly optimal throughout the whole period.},
cin = {IEK-8},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013},
pnm = {243 - Tropospheric trace substances and their
transformation processes (POF3-243)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-243},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.5194/acp-2016-1189},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/828163},
}