CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

VISTAS Modeling Overview May 25, 2004 Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtns. National Park.

Advertisements

Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.

Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.

Preliminary Results CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM with SAPRC99 Gail Tonnesen, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, UC Riverside Max Zhang, Tony Wexler, UC Davis Ralph Morris,

Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,

CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.

Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.

Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA

Climate, Fire and Air Quality Climate Impacts Group June 1, 2006.

The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carolina Environmental Programs Emissions and meteorological Aspects of the 2001 ICAP Simulation Adel Hanna,

The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,

CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.

A Modeling Investigation of the Climate Effects of Air Pollutants Aijun Xiu 1, Rohit Mathur 2, Adel Hanna 1, Uma Shankar 1, Frank Binkowski 1, Carlie Coats.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

National/Regional Air Quality Modeling Assessment Over China and Taiwan Using Models-3/CMAQ Modeling System Joshua S. Fu 1, Carey Jang 2, David Streets.

Lessons Learned: One-Atmosphere Photochemical Modeling in Southeastern U.S. Presentation from Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative to Meeting of Regional.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.

PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.

WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International.

Model Performance Evaluation Database and Software Betty K. Pun, Kristen Lohman, Shu-Yun Chen, and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Presentation at.

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.

Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VISTA Technical Lead for Air.

Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Formation and Emission Control Responses using High-order Sensitivities Di Tian,

Annual Simulations of Models-3/CMAQ: Issues and Lessons Learned Pat Dolwick, Carey Jang, Norm Possiel, Brian Timin, Joe Tikvart Air Quality Modeling Group.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,

Utah Wintertime PM2.5 Modeling Lance Avey Utah Division of Air Quality.

WRAP Modeling. WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON.

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.

Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Ozone SIP Schedule and CCOS Products Policy Committee Meeting John DaMassa April 18, 2002.

WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,

Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.

VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.

Western States Air Quality Study Background Air Quality Modeling University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) May.

PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.

Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.

Technical Projects Update WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT November 10, 2004.

Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.

Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada M. Lepage, J.W. Boulton, X. Qiu and M. Gauthier RWDI AIR Inc. C. di Cenzo Environment Canada, P&YR.

Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.

An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.

1 Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological Model Yunhee Kim, Joshua S.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.

THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS Pilot Project Modeling Overview University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON.

Extending Size-Dependent Composition to the Modal Approach: A Case Study with Sea Salt Aerosol Uma Shankar and Rohit Mathur The University of North Carolina.

1 Emissions Modeling Survey Results Marc Houyoux, US EPA Presentation to the RPO National Workgroup November 4-6, 2004 St. Louis, Missouri.

Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,

Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:

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.

Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.

VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 CAMx Model Performance Evaluation University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.

A Comparison Study of CMAQ Aerosol Prediction by Two Thermodynamic Modules: UHAERO V.S. ISORROPIA Case study for January 2002 episode Fang-Yi Cheng 1,

Overview of Future Year Emissions Processing for CMAQ Modeling Urban, Regional Modeling and Analysis Section Division of Air Resources New York State Department.

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

Visualizing Winter Nitrate Formation Using CMAQ Process Analysis Charles Stanier – University of Iowa CENTER FOR.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of.

Sensitivity of PM 2.5 Species to Emissions in the Southeast Sun-Kyoung Park and Armistead G. Russell Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of PM.

Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025

MANE-VU Emissions Inventory Update

Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency

VISTAS Modeling Overview

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Presentation transcript:

CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004

CENRAP Modeling Timeline Jul-Dec 2003 Jan & Jul 02 (99) MM5 & SMOKE Oct 2004 AQ Model selected & Dev. Model Protocol Aug-Dec 2004 Annual MM5/SMOKE 2002 NEI v. 2 basecase Emission Improvements Jan-Apr 2004 Model Evaluation/Select CMAQ & CAMx Jun-Aug Project. basecase Control Strategy Inv. Jul-Sep basevase & Emission Sensitivity Oct-Dec 2005 Regional Control Strategy Runs Jan-Jun 2006 Final Strategy & Recommendations Jan-Aug 2005 Model Performance. Evaluation PreliminaryBasecase Control Strategy Apr-Sep 2004 MM5 (v.3.6.3)/basB Emissions Sensitivity Diagnostic Analysis Air Quality Modeling July-Aug 2005 Emissions Sensitivity Diagnostic Analysis Meteorology & Emissions

Preliminary Modeling Goals Evaluate the performance of PM models for the CENRAP region –CMAQ vs CAMx Assess uncertainties, sensitivity simulations, and prioritize model improvement activities Integrate AER evaluations with UCR analysis Recommend a best model system for use in CENRAP’s Regional Haze plan

Preliminary Modeling Domain CMAQ and CAMx Jan & July 2002 episodes National RPO grid Lamber Conformal center (-97, 40), Lat (33, 45) MM5 165x129x34 SMOKE 147x111x18 CAMx 101x95x18 CMAQ 101x95x16

Configuration of Models CMB-IV gas phase chemistry in CMAQ/CAMx RADM aqueous phase chemistry in CMAQ/CAMx Horizontal and vertical advection and diffusion Convective transport treated in CMAQ Dry deposition Wet deposition of gases and particles Particle size distribution Aerosol thermodynamics Aerosol dynamics

Problems found in phase 1 negative deposition velocity 0 gmt due to VEGFRAC (mm5) newly released (2/16/04) MM5 v3.6.3 (mcip patch provided by Donna did not work) temp difference ranges -20 to +20 C difference in biogenic & mobile emissions

Ammonium Spatial Distribution MM5 v3.6.3 vs MM5 v3.5

PM 2.5 Sulfate Spatial Distribution MM5 v3.6.3 vs MM5 v3.5

Performance Evaluation Data Available for PM Model Routine Monitors IMPROVE: 24 hour PM 2.5 and component data, one in three days CASTNet: 7-day sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, SO 2, and HNO 3 (may be problematic) AQS: hourly to daily PM 10, PM 2.5, PM 2.5 speciation, O 3, NO, NO 2, NO y, VOC, SO 2 Special Studies PM Supersites BRAVO

Some Observations from Preliminary Modeling Due to large geo, topo, and meterology variations in CENRAP region different approaches for improving model performance at different Class I areas may be required. Emissions sensitivity improves performance but maybe the wrong reason. Also, it may improve the performance at one region but not the other region. Zero BC for sulfate significantly improves the normalized bias by eliminating systematic overpredictions at low concentrations. The “other” PM25 component is consistently overpredicted –basB applies fugitive dust transport factors and significantly reduce the “other” PM25 Accurate predictions of sulfate and nitrate, and the associated ammonium is still key for CENRAP regional haze modeling –Sulfate: chemistry –Nitrate: chemistry, ammonia emissions, and thermodynamics

Next Steps Continue sensitivity runs for SOx, VOC (just finish NOx/NH3 sensitivities) and analyze CMAQ/CAMx results due to emissions reductions. Start diagnostic analysis as per proposal. Integrate UCR/Environ modeling analysis. Model selection based on model runs & diagnostic. Develop annual MM5 36km/12km for CENRAP Incorporate emission improvements in 2002 NEI Develop a RFP for basecase modeling

2002 Basecase Development Domain & Met Modeling CMAQ or CAMx? Domain 1 (36km) - MM5 165x129x34 - AQM 147x111x18? Domain 2 (12km) - MM5 180x240x34? - AQM 162x222x18? MM5 Configuration - Moisture - Reisner II - Cumulus - Kain-Fritsch II - PBL - Pleim-Xiu - Radiation - RRTM - Soil Temp - Pleim-Xiu LSM

2002 Basecase Development Emission Inventory A RFP for Compiling Emission Modeling Inventory 2002 NEI version 2 - mid July 04 work products from STI inc. ammonia, fire, prescribed burning, nonroad, mobile, etc. work products from other RPOs 2002 CEM data SMOKE format improved temporal, spatial, & speciation profiles. additional QA & missing data SMOKE (IDA) converter