Articles | Volume 11, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1653-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1653-2018
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
27 Apr 2018
Methods for assessment of models |  | 27 Apr 2018

Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of an atmospheric chemistry transport model: the FRAME model (version 9.15.0) as a case study

Ksenia Aleksankina, Mathew R. Heal, Anthony J. Dore, Marcel Van Oijen, and Stefan Reis

Related authors

Advanced methods for uncertainty assessment and global sensitivity analysis of an Eulerian atmospheric chemistry transport model
Ksenia Aleksankina, Stefan Reis, Massimo Vieno, and Mathew R. Heal
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 2881–2898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-2881-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-2881-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Simulation of the heat mitigation potential of unsealing measures in cities by parameterizing grass grid pavers for urban microclimate modelling with ENVI-met (V5)
Nils Eingrüber, Alina Domm, Wolfgang Korres, and Karl Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 141–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025, 2025
Short summary
AI-NAOS: an AI-based nonspherical aerosol optical scheme for the chemical weather model GRAPES_Meso5.1/CUACE
Xuan Wang, Lei Bi, Hong Wang, Yaqiang Wang, Wei Han, Xueshun Shen, and Xiaoye Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 117–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Orbital-Radar v1.0.0: a tool to transform suborbital radar observations to synthetic EarthCARE cloud radar data
Lukas Pfitzenmaier, Pavlos Kollias, Nils Risse, Imke Schirmacher, Bernat Puigdomenech Treserras, and Katia Lamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 101–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Modular and Integrated Data Assimilation System at Environment and Climate Change Canada (MIDAS v3.9.1)
Mark Buehner, Jean-Francois Caron, Ervig Lapalme, Alain Caya, Ping Du, Yves Rochon, Sergey Skachko, Maziar Bani Shahabadi, Sylvain Heilliette, Martin Deshaies-Jacques, Weiguang Chang, and Michael Sitwell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modeling of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from global to regional scales: model development (IAP-AACM_PAH v1.0) and investigation of health risks in 2013 and 2018 in China
Zichen Wu, Xueshun Chen, Zifa Wang, Huansheng Chen, Zhe Wang, Qing Mu, Lin Wu, Wending Wang, Xiao Tang, Jie Li, Ying Li, Qizhong Wu, Yang Wang, Zhiyin Zou, and Zijian Jiang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8885–8907, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8885-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8885-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aleksankina, K.: Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of an atmospheric chemistry transport model: the FRAME model (version 9.15.0) as a case study [Data set], Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1145852, 2018.
Appel, K. W., Gilliland, A. B., Sarwar, G., and Gilliam, R. C.: Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance, Atmos. Environ., 41, 9603–9615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.08.044, 2007.
AQEG: Linking Emission Inventories and Ambient Measurements, available at: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1508060906_ DEF-PB14106_Linking_Emissions_ Inventories_And_Ambient_ Measurements_Final.pdf (last access: 9 March 2018), 2015.
Bergin, M. S., Noblet, G. S., Petrini, K., Dhieux, J. R., Milford, J. B., and Harley, R. A.: Formal Uncertainty Analysis of a Lagrangian Photochemical Air Pollution Model, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 1116–1126, https://doi.org/10.1021/es980749y, 1999.
Blatman, G. and Sudret, B.: A comparison of three metamodel-based methods for global sensitivity analysis: GP modelling, HDMR and LAR-gPC, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci., 2, 7613–7614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.143, 2010.
Download
Short summary
Atmospheric chemistry transport models are widely used to underpin policy decisions. We present a global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis approach to understand how uncertainty in input emissions of SO2, NOx, and NH3 drives uncertainties in model outputs, using the FRAME model as an example. We interpret results for input emissions uncertainty ranges reported by the national emissions inventory. Variance-based measures of sensitivity were used to apportion model output uncertainty.