English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. We report on an evaluation of tropospheric ozone and itsprecursor gases in three atmospheric chemistry versions as implemented in theEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) IntegratedForecasting System (IFS), referred to as IFS(CB05BASCOE), IFS(MOZART) andIFS(MOCAGE). While the model versions were forced with the same overallmeteorology, emissions, transport and deposition schemes, they vary largelyin their parameterisations describing atmospheric chemistry, including theorganics degradation, heterogeneous chemistry and photolysis, as well aschemical solver. The model results from the three chemistry versions arecompared against a range of aircraft field campaigns, surface observations,ozone-sondes and satellite observations, which provides quantification of theoverall model uncertainty driven by the chemistry parameterisations. We findthat 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 themagnitude of CO and NMHCs can be explained by differences in OHconcentrations, which can reach up to 50 %, particularly at highlatitudes. There are also comparatively large discrepancies between modelversions for NO2 , SO2 and HNO3 , which arestrongly influenced by secondary chemical production and loss. Other commonbiases in CO and NMHCs are mainly attributed to uncertainties in theiremissions. This configuration of having various chemistry versions within IFSprovides a quantification of uncertainties induced by chemistry modelling inthe main CAMS global trace gas products beyond those that are constrained bydata assimilation.

Quantifying uncertainties due to chemistry modelling – evaluation of tropospheric composition simulations in the CAMS model (cycle 43R1)