Coupled Stratospheric Chemistry–Meteorology Data Assimilation. Part I: Physical Background and Coupled Modeling Aspects
| dc.contributor.author | Ménard, R. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chabrillat, S. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Robichaud, A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | de Grandpré, J. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Charron, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rochon, Y. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Batchelor, R. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kallaur, A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Reszka, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kaminski, J.W. | |
| dc.date | 2020 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-31T10:59:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-31T10:59:34Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://orfeo.belnet.be/handle/internal/7443 | |
| dc.description | A coupled stratospheric chemistry–meteorology model was developed by combining the Canadian operational weather prediction model Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) with a comprehensive stratospheric photochemistry model from the Belgian Assimilation System for Chemical ObsErvations (BASCOE). The coupled model was called GEM-BACH for GEM-Belgian Atmospheric CHemistry. The coupling was made across a chemical interface that preserves time-splitting while being modular, allowing GEM to run with or without chemistry. An evaluation of the coupling was performed by comparing the coupled model, refreshed by meteorological analyses every 6 h, against the standard offline chemical transport model (CTM) approach. Results show that the dynamical meteorological consistency between meteorological analysis times far outweighs the error created by the jump resulting from the meteorological analysis increments at regular time intervals, irrespective of whether a 3D-Var or 4D-Var meteorological analysis is used. Arguments in favor of using the same horizontal resolution for chemistry, meteorology, and meteorological and chemical analysis increments are also presented. GEM-BACH forecasts refreshed by meteorological analyses every 6 h were compared against independent measurements of temperature, long-lived species, ozone and water vapor. The comparison showed a relatively good agreement throughout the stratosphere except for an upper-level warm temperature bias and an ozone deficit of nearly 15%. In particular, the coupled model simulation during an ozone hole event gives better ozone concentrations than a 4D-Var chemical assimilation at a lower resolution. | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.title | Coupled Stratospheric Chemistry–Meteorology Data Assimilation. Part I: Physical Background and Coupled Modeling Aspects | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dc.subject.frascati | Earth and related Environmental sciences | |
| dc.audience | Scientific | |
| dc.subject.free | coupled chemistry–meteorology model | |
| dc.subject.free | dynamical–photochemical–radiation interactions in the stratosphere | |
| dc.subject.free | comparison between online model and offline CTM approach | |
| dc.source.title | Atmosphere | |
| dc.source.volume | 11 | |
| dc.source.issue | 2 | |
| dc.source.page | A150 | |
| Orfeo.peerreviewed | Yes | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/atmos11020150 |
