Causes of Haze Assessment Update for the Haze Attribution Forum Meeting By Marc Pitchford 9/24/04.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.
Advertisements

Causes of Haze Assessment Mark Green Desert Research Institute Marc Pitchford, Chair Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum.
An Overview of the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) Study Marc Pitchford, Ph.D National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Natural Haze Sensitivity Study “Final” Update Ivar Tombach RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Call 8 May 2006.
PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.
Attribution of Haze Phase 2 and Technical Support System Project Update AoH Meeting – San Francisco, CA September 14/15, 2005 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource.
Assessing PM 2.5 Background Levels and Local Add-On Prepared by Bryan Lambeth, PE Field Operations Support Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Ozone transport network Guoxun Tian CS 790G Fall 2010.
BRAVO - Results Big Bend Regional Aerosol & Visibility Observational Study Bret Schichtel National Park Service,
Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Map of the Guadalupe Mountains Region NEW MEXICO TEXAS Guadalupe Mtns. Park Map To Carlsbad To El Paso To I-10 Visibility Degradation in Guadalupe Mountains.
IMPROVE Network Assessment Plans. IMPROVE Network Assessment Motivation: –EPA’s air quality monitoring budget is not growing, but their requirements are.
The robustness of the source receptor relationships used in GAINS Hilde Fagerli, EMEP/MSC-W EMEP/MSC-W.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
Stream Quality Analysis Problem Based Learning Module Kerry Hartman Fort Berthold Community College.
Tribal Causes of Haze Representativeness Assessment Phase I Mark Green, Alissa Smiley, and Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.
BRAVO Back-Trajectory Analyses Why Consider ATAD? History of use at Big Bend - How Good is our past? History of comparison to other wind fields. ATAD vs.
Colorado Plateau Sulfate Episode Worst 20% at 5 sites: INGA, BRCA, MEVE, WEMI & SAPE Best 20% at GICL, SACR, CHIR, SIAN, GUMO, TONT, and most California.
Ny-Ålesund Seminars, October Black carbon (BC) belongs to what is generally termed Short Lived Climate Forcers (SLCF). This means that the.
AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
WRAP COHA Update Seattle, WA May 25, 2006 Jin Xu.
Incorporating Monitoring, Modeling, and EI Data into AoH Analysis AoH Meeting, Salt Lake City September 21-22, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Status of Technical Analysis Technical Oversight Committee September 14, 2006.
COHA Update Jin Xu. Update 2003 and 2004 back-trajectories – done PMF modeling by groups using 2000 to 2004 IMPROVE data – done Analysis of PMF results.
Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute Presented at the RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting November 5, 2003.
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
Estimating local versus regional contributions to tropospheric ozone: An example case study for Las Vegas Mark Green and Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Causes of Haze Assessment Update for Fire Emissions Joint Forum -12/9/04 Meeting Marc Pitchford.
Overview and Status of the Emissions Data Analysis and Modeling Portions of the Virginia Mercury Study 1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
Draft, 2 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 1. Project Overview Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
August 1999PM Data Analysis Workbook: Characterizing PM23 Spatial Patterns Urban spatial patterns: explore PM concentrations in urban settings. Urban/Rural.
Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.
Overview of the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) study:  Understand the long-range, trans-boundary transport of visibility-reducing.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION INFLUENCES ON AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS AND VISIBILITY DEGRADATION IN THE UNITED STATES Rokjin J. Park, Daniel J. Jacob,
Springtime Airmass Transport Pathways to the US Prepared by: Bret A. Schichtel and Rudolf B. Husar CAPITA CAPITA,Washington University Saint Louis, Missouri.
New Mexico Pilot Study: Salt Creek and White Mountain Wilderness areas Prepared by: Ilias Kavouras, Vic Etyemezian, Jin Xu, Dave DuBois, Marc Pitchford.
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Spatial variation of worst dust days (number shows the mean dust conc for WDD)
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update Jin Xu. Update Visibility trends analysis (under revision) Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002 (modeling.
Attribution of Haze Project Update Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting September 8-9, 2004 Worley, ID.
What Causes Climate? Notes. Introduction A climate is the average, year-after- year weather conditions in an area. Two factors are important in describing.
Phase I Attribution of Haze Overview (Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule) or (an experiment in weight-of evidence)
Ann M. Dillner, Mark C. Green
How could data be used in an EPQ?
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
The average PM2.5 mass concentration based on IMPROVE data available from September 2000 to December 2002 is 3.3 mg/m3 The highest occurrence of the 20%
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
New CoHA Product Access Page & Representativeness Analysis
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.
Presentation transcript:

Causes of Haze Assessment Update for the Haze Attribution Forum Meeting By Marc Pitchford 9/24/04

Evaluation of the Transport Regression Attribution Approach Sensitivity to back trajectory start heights Relative merits of EDAS and FNL wind fields for back trajectories Utility of a Pacific coastal source region Annual versus seasonal (cool season and warm season) regression assessments Appropriate air quality parameters Regressions forced through zero or not

Transport Regression Model The model finds regression coefficients (A i ) for each source region (i) that produces a best fit to the following relationship between the measured air quality (e.g. sulfate concentration) and residence time in each source region (T i ) for several years of data Air Quality = Σ (A i x T i ) = A 1 T 1 + A 2 T A n T n Residence time is the amount of time air is calculated to be in a source region using a back trajectory model.

Source Regions of Grand Canyon (GRCA2) PAC CAN ATL Gulf MEX NW NE SE CA NVUTCO NM SWAZ SEAZ NWAZ NEAZ EDAS Domain

Comparison of Regression Modeling Results at Grand Canyon Using Residence Time (Based on EDAS) at 10m, 500m, 1500m and All Three Heights Sulfur Concentration (ng/m 3 ) Results are similar, so we will use a start height of 500 meters.

Comparison Between Measured and Calculated Sulfur Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) at Grand Canyon Based on Trajectory Regression at 500m Using EDAS The regression model did a relatively good job. But it missed some peak values. Sulfur Concentration (ng/m 3 )

Normalized Total Residence Time Maps at Grand Canyon

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results for Sulfur at GRCA2 Using FNL and EDAS Similar results are found in GRCA2 using FNL and EDAS as HYSPLIT trajectory modeling inputs. Sulfur Concentration (ng/m 3 )

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results at BADL1 Using FNL and EDAS Similar regression results at BADL1 using FNL and EDAS Smaller contribution from the Pacific Ocean based on FNL

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results at MORA1 Using FNL and EDAS Similar regression results at MORA1 using FNL and EDAS

300Km 500Km GRCA - Create a coastal area (300 Km or 500 Km off of the coast line) in the Pacific Ocean Trajectory regression modeling suggests that a large amount of particulate sulfate is from the Pacific Ocean. Is it from the coastal area or from longer distance?

Comparison of trajectory regression results (Using EDAS data) at GRCA with / without the dividing up of the Pacific Ocean 1. Similar regression coefficients are found at GRCA2 with / without the dividing up of the Pacific Ocean. 2. About half of the sulfur from the Pacific Ocean is from within 300Km off of the coast – Shipping emissions, long range transported aerosols, or trajectory uncertainties?

Seasonal Variation of the Regression Results for sulfur at GRCA (EDAS with 300Km Coastal Area) Sulfur Concentration (ng/m 3 ) There are some seasonal variations in the regression coefficients. But the source areas with big variations in regression coefficients are those with relatively less end points (i.e. with relatively lower contribution to total sulfur concentration) Overall, trajectory regressions give similar results in GRCA2 with and without the consideration of the seasonal variations.

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results for Nitrate With/Without Seasonal Division (EDAS with 300Km Coastal Area) Contribution to Nitrate Overall trajectory regression results for nitrate are similar in GRCA2 with and without the consideration of the seasonal variation. The regression is better in the warm season (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.75) than the cool season (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.4).

Contributions to Sulfur, Extinction Coefficient, OC and Nitrate at GRCA2 (EDAS with 300Km Coastal Area) The contributions to sulfur and B ep are similar, while the contributions of southwestern Arizona to Nitrate and California to OC are higher. The regressions for sulfur and B ep (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.8) are better than for OC and Nitrate (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.5)

Comparison of Percentage Contributions to Bep, Sulfur and Nitrate Concentrations at Joshua Tree Wilderness Area Regression for Sulfur (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.8) and B ep (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.7) are better than Nitrate (multiple regression with no intercept R 2 ~ 0.4)

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results at JOSH1 Using FNL and EDAS Contribution to Nitarte Similar regression results using FNL and EDAS

Comparison of Trajectory Regression Results at JOSH1 Using FNL and EDAS (300 Km Coastal Area) Most of the Pacific Ocean sulfur is from the coastal area. More of the Pacific Ocean sulfur is attributed to the coastal area based on EDAS than FNL.

Comparison Between Regression Results With / Without Intercept at GRCA Similar results whether intercept is forced to zero or not. Intercept could be some combination of global background influence and statistical noise. We’ll do both since it doesn’t require much extra work and may be useful

Summary of Evaluations Results Back trajectory regression is not sensitive to start heights so we’ll use 500 meters EDAS and FNL wind fields give similar results so we’ll use EDAS except for Alaska & Hawaii sites Having a Pacific coastal source region is useful so we’ve defined one at 300km from the coast Seasonal regressions don’t seem to provide sufficient value to justify their use Sulfate is most appropriate and light extinction is useful, so will do them in the first effort. We will calculate regressions both forced through zero or not forced through zero to maintain options to choose on an individual site basis

Next Steps & Schedule Transport Regression –Source regions are being defined & residence times determined ~End of November –Regressions will be calculated & displays generated ~Mid-December –All will be uploaded onto the COHA web site ~End of Year Conceptual Models w/o transport inclusion of transport regression ~End of November