% 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{Huijnen:866830,
author = {Huijnen, Vincent and Pozzer, Andrea and Arteta, Joaquim and
Brasseur, Guy and Bouarar, Idir and Chabrillat, Simon and
Christophe, Yves and Doumbia, Thierno and Flemming, Johannes
and Guth, Jonathan and Josse, Béatrice and Karydis, Vlassis
A. and Marécal, Virginie and Pelletier, Sophie},
title = {{Q}uantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling –
evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the
{CAMS} model (cycle 43{R}1)},
journal = {Geoscientific model development},
volume = {12},
number = {4},
issn = {1991-9603},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {Copernicus},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-05893},
pages = {1725 - 1752},
year = {2019},
abstract = {We report on an evaluation of tropospheric ozone and its
precursor gases in three atmospheric chemistry versions as
implemented in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS),
referred to as IFS(CB05BASCOE), IFS(MOZART) and IFS(MOCAGE).
While the model versions were forced with the same overall
meteorology, emissions, transport and deposition schemes,
they vary largely in their parameterisations describing
atmospheric chemistry, including the organics degradation,
heterogeneous chemistry and photolysis, as well as chemical
solver. The model results from the three chemistry versions
are compared against a range of aircraft field campaigns,
surface observations, ozone-sondes and satellite
observations, which provides quantification of the overall
model uncertainty driven by the chemistry parameterisations.
We find that they produce similar patterns and magnitudes
for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3), as well as a range
of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs), with averaged
differences for O3 (CO) within $10 \%$ $(20 \%)$
throughout the troposphere. Most of the divergence in the
magnitude of CO and NMHCs can be explained by differences in
OH concentrations, which can reach up to $50 \%,$
particularly at high latitudes. There are also comparatively
large discrepancies between model versions for NO2, SO2 and
HNO3, which are strongly influenced by secondary chemical
production and loss. Other common biases in CO and NMHCs are
mainly attributed to uncertainties in their emissions. This
configuration of having various chemistry versions within
IFS provides a quantification of uncertainties induced by
chemistry modelling in the main CAMS global trace gas
products beyond those that are constrained by data
assimilation.},
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},
UT = {WOS:000466601200001},
doi = {10.5194/gmd-12-1725-2019},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/866830},
}