Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Analysis of CMAQ Performance and Grid-to- grid Variability Over 12-km and 4-km Spacing Domains within the Houston airshed Daiwen Kang Computer Science.
Advertisements

Initial evaluation of 2011 CMAQ and CAMx simulations during the DISCOVER-AQ period in the mid-Atlantic 13 th Annual CMAS Conference: 10/28/14 Pat Dolwick,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Changes in U.S. Regional-Scale Air.
NASA AQAST 6th Biannual Meeting January 15-17, 2014 Heather Simon Changes in Spatial and Temporal Ozone Patterns Resulting from Emissions Reductions: Implications.
Ozone Modeling over the Western U.S. -- Impact of National Controls on Ozone Trends in the Future Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States -- March.
GEOS-Chem Simulations for CMAQ Initial and Boundary Conditions 1 Yun-Fat Lam, 1 Joshua S. Fu, 2 Daniel J. Jacob, 3 Carey Jang and 3 Pat Dolwick.
Photo image area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can be masked by a collage strip of one, two or three images. The photo image area is located 3.19” from left.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Ozone and Aerosols in US and East Asia between 2001 and 2002 Yun-Fat Lam 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Zuopan Li 1, Carey Jang 2, Rokjin Park 3 and Daniel J. Jacob.
THE IMPACTS OF TRANS-BOUNDARY TRANSPORT OF AEROSOLS ON THE REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: A case study of Mexican wildland fire on May 1998 Hee-Jin In 1, Daewon.
Update on biogenic and soil emissions modeling for DYNAMO Daniel Cohan, Rui Zhang, Quazi Rasool, and Arastoo Pour Biazar AQAST 9 meeting, St. Louis University.
Transitioning CMAQ for NWS Operational AQ Forecasting Jeff McQueen*, Pius Lee*, Marina Tsildulko*, G. DiMego*, B. Katz* R. Mathur,T. Otte, J. Pleim, J.
Sensitivity Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) April 29, 2015 Western States Air Quality.
Prediction of Future North American Air Quality Gabriele Pfister, Stacy Walters, Mary Barth, Jean-Francois Lamarque, John Wong Atmospheric Chemistry Division,
Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.
Impact of Emissions on Intercontinental Long-Range Transport Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam and Yang Gao, University of Tennessee, USA Rokjin Park, Seoul National.
The Impact of Biogenic VOC Emissions on Tropospheric Ozone Formation in the Mid-Atlantic Region Michelle L. Bell Yale University Hugh Ellis Johns Hopkins.
1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Annual Simulations of Models-3/CMAQ: Issues and Lessons Learned Pat Dolwick, Carey Jang, Norm Possiel, Brian Timin, Joe Tikvart Air Quality Modeling Group.
Utah Wintertime PM2.5 Modeling Lance Avey Utah Division of Air Quality.
Photo image area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can be masked by a collage strip of one, two or three images. The photo image area is located 3.19” from left.
A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,
WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,
Impacts of MOVES2014 On-Road Mobile Emissions on Air Quality Simulations of the Western U.S. Z. Adelman, M. Omary, D. Yang UNC – Institute for the Environment.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.
An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.
Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ I. Results from the 2003 Release II. Plans for the 2004 Release Model Evaluation Team Members Prakash Bhave, Robin Dennis,
Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of Future Year Results to Boundary Conditions Jim Boylan, Talat Odman, Ted Russell February 6, 2001.
Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,
Evaluation of CMAQ Driven by Downscaled Historical Meteorological Fields Karl Seltzer 1, Chris Nolte 2, Tanya Spero 2, Wyat Appel 2, Jia Xing 2 14th Annual.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain Data Warehouse (IWDW) WAQS Workplan and Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) Ramboll-Environ.
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
Response of fine particles to the reduction of precursor emissions in Yangtze River Delta (YRD), China Juan Li 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yang Gao 1, Yun-Fat Lam.
Fine Scale Modeling of Ozone Exposure Estimates using a Source Sensitivity Approach Cesunica E. Ivey, Lucas Henneman, Cong Liu, Yongtao T. Hu, Armistead.
Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.
Off-line Air Quality Modeling Paradigms:
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Global Influences on Local Pollution
SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
LNOx Influence on Upper Tropospheric Ozone Mike Newchurch1, Lihua Wang1, Arastoo Biazar1, Williams Koshak2, Xiong Liu3 1Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville,
A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ
Source Apportionment Modeling to Investigate Background, Regional, and Local Contributions to Ozone Concentrations in Denver, Phoenix, Detroit, and Atlanta.
16th Annual CMAS Conference
C. Nolte, T. Spero, P. Dolwick, B. Henderson, R. Pinder
2017 Projections and Interstate Transport of Ozone in Southeastern US Talat Odman & Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD 16th Annual.
Kirk Baker, Heather Simon, Gobeail McKinley, Neal Fann, Elizabeth Chan
Hemispheric-CMAQ Application and Evaluation for 2016
Policy-driven priorities for improvements to the CMAQ photochemical modeling system Heather Simon, Kristen Foley, Sharon Phillips, Norm Possiel, Shawn.
Quantification of Lightning NOX and its Impact on Air Quality over the Contiguous United States Daiwen Kang, Rohit Mathur, Limei Ran, Gorge Pouliot, David.
Modeling the impacts of green infrastructure land use changes on air quality and meteorology—case study and sensitivity analysis in Kansas City Yuqiang.
Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency
Heather Simon, Kirk Baker, Norm Possiel, Pat Dolwick, Brian Timin
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
Overview of WRAP 2014 Platform develop and Shake-Out project update
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.
Hemispheric 2016 Predicted Ozone
Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
PGM Boundary conditions
Improving Regional PM2.5 Modeling along Utah’s Wasatch Front
Presentation transcript:

Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform US EPA / Air Quality Modeling Group Sharon Phillips, Heather Simon, Norm Possiel

Model Configuration 2007 Emissions built off 2008 NEI v2 Mason et al., 9:30am Dogwood Room 2007 Meteorology WRF v3.1 with MCIP v3.6 Misenis et al, poster 12 km “national” US2 Domain 24 Vertical Layers January and July monthly runs 10 ramp-up days Common model configuration for all incremental model sensitivities using CMAQ v5.0.1 for the development of the 2007 regulatory platform

Description of Current Model Sensitivities Incremental simulations   Model Meteorology Emissions IC /BC 2007 Benchmark CMAQ v4.7.1 - CAPs - AERO5 - j-tables 2007 WRF v3.1 MCIP v3.6 38 meter 1st layer thickness 2007 Emissions built off 2008 NEI v2 2007 24-layer GEOS-Chem v8-02-03 Upper layer O3 adjusted downward based on ozonesonde data Sensitivity 1  CMAQ v5.0.1 - AERO6 - inline photolysis Same as above Sensitivity 2 2007 24-layer GEOS-Chem v8-03-02 using GEOS2CMAQ tool Sensitivity 3 Lightning NO emis IC/BCs created using v8-03-02 and GEOS2CMAQ tool is equivalent to IC/BCs used by ORD for testing and implementing CMAQ v5.0.1. (Farhan Aktar poster) Inline emissions calculation informed by lightning detection network data

Characterization of new BCs for 2007 platform Compare old and new 24 layer BCs July Monthly Average Old BCs New BCs ** Aktar et al., Poster

2007 July Total emissions (tons) Lightning NO 2x larger Onroad NOx Note that this lightning NO is not at ground level Note: July total lightning NO emissions domain wide is 471,493 tons

Description of Future Model Sensitivities Incremental simulations   Model Meteorology Emissions IC /BC Sensitivity 4  CMAQ v5.0.1 - CAPs - AERO6 - inline photolysis 2007 WRF v3.3 MCIP v3.6 20 meter 1st layer thickness 2007 Emissions built off 2008 NEI v2 Lightning NO emis 2007 24-layer GEOSChem v8-03-02 using GEOS2CMAQ tool Sensitivity 5  Same as above Same as above bi-directional flux for fertilizer NH3 emis Sensitivity 6 wind blown dust

Model Performance Metrics Inter-comparison of Sensitivity Runs Focus on January and July monthly average Focus on 4 specific model species Ozone Elemental Carbon Sulfate PM Nitrate PM Spatial concentration difference plots Spatial bias plots Mean Bias ∆ Absolute Bias Diurnal hourly ozone time-series plots Mean Bias of binned ozone concentration ranges

ozone

July Monthly Avg Ozone (all hours) 2007 Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 LTNG NO - New IC/BC

July 8-hr max Daily Ozone ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias 2007 Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 LTNG NO - New IC/BC Note: this model eval is on 8 hr max daily ozone versus the previous slide which showed July Monthly avg ozone Change in Absolute Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

July Monthly Avg Ozone (2 specific day/hours) Effect of CMAQ v5.0.1 v5.0.1– July 12th 17 UTC v5.0.1 – July 19th 21 UTC (v5.0.1 – v4.7.1) – July 12th 17 UTC (v5.0.1 – v4.7.1) – July 19th 21 UTC

July Monthly Avg Ozone (2 specific days/hours) Effect of new IC/BC New IC/BC – July 2nd 0 UTC New IC/BC – July 22nd 20 UTC (New IC/BC – v5.0.1) – July 2nd 0 UTC (New IC/BC – v5.0.1) – July 22nd 20 UTC

July Monthly Avg Ozone (2 specific days/hours) Effect of Lightning NO LTNG NO – July 1st 19 UTC LTNG NO – July 24th 19 UTC (LGTN NO – new BC) – July 1st 19 UTC (LGTN NO – new BC) – July 24th 19 UTC

Atlanta - 2007 July Hourly Ozone v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC vs LTNG NO July 1st – 9th Model performance for hourly ozone is similar for the three CMAQ v5.0.1 sensitivity runs. Nighttime differences between v5.0.1 and v4.7.1 runs reflect changes in the mixing in v5.0.1. Daytime differences are much smaller between all the model runs. July 14th – 21st

2007 July Ozone – Mean Bias (ppb) v4. 7. 1 vs v5 2007 July Ozone – Mean Bias (ppb) v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC vs LTNG NO Hourly Ozone 8-hr max daily Ozone Improvements in hourly ozone predictions in 3 CMAQ v5.0.1 runs due to mixing at nighttime

elemental Carbon

2007 July Monthly Avg Elemental Carbon Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1

July Elemental Carbon ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias 2007 Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 LTNG NO - New IC/BC Change in Absolute Value Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

2007 January Monthly Avg Elemental Carbon Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1

2007 January Elemental Carbon ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias Benchmark v4.7.1 2007 January Elemental Carbon ∆ Absolute Bias v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 Change in Absolute Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

Sulfate PM

2007 July Monthly Avg Sulfate PM Benchmark v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1

July Sulfate PM ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias 2007 Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 LTNG NO - New IC/BC Change in Absolute Value Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

Nitrate PM

2007 January Monthly Avg Nitrate PM Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1 New IC/BC – v 5.0.1

2007 January Nitrate PM ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 Change in Absolute Value Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

Summary of Findings Updates to mixing in v5.0.1 produced large effects in model predictions Mostly at nighttime Overall, new BCs and Lightning NO emissions produced small changes in model predictions substantial changes at isolated locations and times (sporadic) Future work will evaluate WRF v3.3 meteorology 20 meter 1st layer thickness Bi-directional flux for fertilizer NH3 emissions Wind-blown dust emissions

APPENDIX

Characterization of new BCs for 2007 platform Compare old and new 24 layer BCs July Monthly Maximum Old BCs New BCs

2007 January Monthly Avg Ozone (all hours) Benchmark v4.7.1 2007 January Monthly Avg Ozone (all hours) v5.0.1 – v4.7.1 New IC/BC – v 5.0.1

2007 January 8-hr max Daily Ozone ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias Benchmark v4.7.1 2007 January 8-hr max Daily Ozone ∆ Absolute Bias v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 Change in Absolute Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

Detroit - 2007 July Hourly Ozone v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC vs LTNG NO July 1st – 9th July 22nd – 31st

Los Angeles - 2007 July Hourly Ozone v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC vs LTNG NO July 1st – 9th July 24th – 31st

Denver - 2007 July Hourly Ozone v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC vs LTNG NO July 1st – 9th July 22nd – 31st

2007 July Hourly Ozone v4.7.1 vs v5.0.1 vs new IC/BC

2007 January Monthly Avg Sulfate PM Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1

2007 January Sulfate PM ∆ Absolute Bias Mean Bias Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 - v4.7.1 New IC/BC - v5.0.1 Change in Absolute Bias – warm colors mean degradation in MB; cool colors mean improvement in MB

2007 July Monthly Avg Nitrate PM Benchmark v4.7.1 v5.0.1 – v4.7.1 New IC/BC – v 5.0.1

2007 July Monthly Avg 2007 July Monthly Avg Nitrate PM Nitrate PM Benchmark v4.7.1 2007 July Monthly Avg Nitrate PM 2007 July Monthly Avg Nitrate PM LTNG NO – New IC/BC