Abstract. Numerical models that combine weather forecasting and atmospheric chemistry are here referred to as chemical weather forecasting models. Eighteen operational chemical weather forecasting models on regional and continental scales in Europe are described and compared in this article. Topics discussed in this article include how weather forecasting and atmospheric chemistry models are integrated into chemical weather forecasting systems, how physical processes are incorporated into the models through parameterization schemes, how the model architecture affects the predicted variables, and how air chemistry and aerosol processes are formulated. In addition, we discuss sensitivity analysis and evaluation of the models, user operational requirements, such as model availability and documentation, and output availability and dissemination. In this manner, this article allows for the evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various modelling systems and modelling approaches. Finally, this article highlights the most prominent gaps of knowledge for chemical weather forecasting models and suggests potential priorities for future research Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. J. Kukkonen et al.: A review of operational, regional-scale, chemical weather forecasting models in Europedirections, for the following selected focus areas: emission inventories, the integration of numerical weather prediction and atmospheric chemical transport models, boundary conditions and nesting of models, data assimilation of the various chemical species, improved understanding and parameterization of physical processes, better evaluation of models against data and the construction of model ensembles.

No abstract

Abstract. The EURODELTA III exercise has facilitated a comprehensive intercomparison and evaluation of chemistry transport model performances. Participating models performed calculations for four 1-month periods in different seasons in the years 2006 to 2009, allowing the influence of different meteorological conditions on model performances to be evaluated. The exercise was performed with strict requirements for the input data, with few exceptions. As a consequence, most of differences in the outputs will be attributed to the differences in model formulations of chemical and physical processes. The models were evaluated mainly for background rural stations in Europe. The performance was assessed in terms of bias, root mean square error and correlation with respect to the concentrations of air pollutants (NO2, O3, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5), as well as key meteorological variables. Though most of meteorological parameters were prescribed, some variables like the planetary boundary layer (PBL) height and the vertical diffusion coefficient were derived in the model preprocessors and can partly explain the spread in model results. In general, the daytime PBL height is underestimated by all models. The largest variability of predicted PBL is observed over the ocean and seas. For ozone, this study shows the importance of proper boundary conditions for accurate model calculations and then on the regime of the gas and particle chemistry. The models show similar and quite good performance for nitrogen dioxide, whereas they struggle to accurately reproduce measured sulfur dioxide concentrations (for which the agreement with observations is the poorest). In general, the models provide a close-to-observations map of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) concentrations over Europe rather with correlations in the range 0.4–0.7 and a systematic underestimation reaching −10 µg m−3 for PM10. The highest concentrations are much more underestimated, particularly in wintertime. Further evaluation of the mean diurnal cycles of PM reveals a general model tendency to overestimate the effect of the PBL height rise on PM levels in the morning, while the intensity of afternoon chemistry leads formation of secondary species to be underestimated. This results in larger modelled PM diurnal variations than the observations for all seasons. The models tend to be too sensitive to the daily variation of the PBL. All in all, in most cases model performances are more influenced by the model setup than the season. The good representation of temporal evolution of wind speed is the most responsible for models' skillfulness in reproducing the daily variability of pollutant concentrations (e.g. the development of peak episodes), while the reconstruction of the PBL diurnal cycle seems to play a larger role in driving the corresponding pollutant diurnal cycle and hence determines the presence of systematic positive and negative biases detectable on daily basis.

No abstract

Abstract. Urban air pollution is associated with significant adverse health effects. Model-based abatement strategies are required and developed for the growing urban populations. In the initial development stage, these are focussed on exceedances of air quality standards caused by high short-term pollutant concentrations. Prediction of health effects and implementation of urban air quality information and abatement systems require accurate forecasting of air pollution episodes and population exposure, including modelling of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric dispersion and chemical reaction of pollutants, population mobility, and indoor-outdoor relationship of the pollutants. In the past, these different areas have been treated separately by different models and even institutions. Progress in computer resources and ensuing improvements in numerical weather prediction, air chemistry, and exposure modelling recently allow a unification and integration of the disjunctive models and approaches. The current work presents a novel approach that integrates the latest developments in meteorological, air quality, and population exposure modelling into Urban Air Quality Information and Forecasting Systems (UAQIFS) in the context of the European Union FUMAPEX project. The suggested integrated strategy is demonstrated for examples of the systems in three Nordic cities: Helsinki and Oslo for assessment and forecasting of urban air pollution and Copenhagen for urban emergency preparedness.