% 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:842557,
author = {Sofiev, Mikhail and Ritenberga, Olga and Albertini, Roberto
and Arteta, Joaquim and Belmonte, Jordina and Bernstein,
Carmi Geller and Bonini, Maira and Celenk, Sevcan and
Damialis, Athanasios and Douros, John and Elbern, Hendrik
and Friese, Elmar and Galan, Carmen and Oliver, Gilles and
Hrga, Ivana and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and Krajsek, Kai and
Magyar, Donat 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: current status and
outlook},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics},
volume = {17},
number = {20},
issn = {1680-7324},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-00776},
pages = {12341 - 12360},
year = {2017},
abstract = {The paper presents the first modelling experiment of the
European-scale olive pollen dispersion, analyses the quality
of the predictions, and outlines the research needs. A
6-model strong ensemble of Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring
Service (CAMS) was run throughout the olive season of 2014,
computing the olive pollen distribution. The simulations
have been compared with observations in eight countries,
which are members of the European Aeroallergen Network
(EAN). Analysis was performed for individual models, the
ensemble mean and median, and for a dynamically optimised
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 was reported to start too early by
8 days, but for some models the error mounted to almost 2
weeks. For the end of the season, the disagreement between
the models and the observations varied from a nearly perfect
match up to 2 weeks too late. A series of sensitivity
studies carried out to understand the origin of the
disagreements revealed the crucial role of ambient
temperature and consistency of its representation by the
meteorological models and heat-sum-based phenological model.
In particular, a simple correction to the heat-sum threshold
eliminated the shift of the start of the season 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 / JSC},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
pnm = {243 - Tropospheric trace substances and their
transformation processes (POF3-243)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-243},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000413112300002},
doi = {10.5194/acp-17-12341-2017},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/842557},
}