A detailed evaluation of the WRF-CMAQ forecast model performance for O 3, and PM 2.5 during the 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS study Shaocai Yu $, Rohit Mathur +,

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,
A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Constraining Anthropogenic Emissions of Fugitive Dust with Dynamic Transportable Fraction and Measurements Chapel Hill, NC October 22, 2009 Daniel Tong.
Modeled Trends in Impacts of Landing and Takeoff Aircraft Emissions on Surface Air-Quality in U.S for 2005, 2010 and 2018 Lakshmi Pradeepa Vennam 1, Saravanan.
Improving the Representation of Atmospheric Chemistry in WRF William R. Stockwell Department of Chemistry Howard University.
4-km AIRPACT vs 12-km AIRPACT Both with dynamic boundary conditions from MOZART-4 Figures created on 5/29/2011 (corrected corrupted JPROC input file)
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
The impact of the thermal power industries from the Beijing- Tianjin-Hebei regions on Beijing haze studied by the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model (Preliminary.
Evaluation of Real-time Air Quality Forecasts from WRF-NMM/CMAQ and NMMB/CMAQ Using Discover-AQ P-3B Airborne Measurements Youhua Tang 1,2, Jeffery T.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
The Sensitivity of Aerosol Sulfate to Changes in Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds Ariel F. Stein Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania.
Simulation of Houston-Galveston Airshed Ozone Episode with EPA’s CMAQ Daewon Byun: PI Soontae Kim, Beata Czader, Seungbum Kim Emissions input Chemical.
Air Resources Laboratory Yunsoo Choi 12, Daewon Byun 1, Pius Lee 1, Rick Saylor 1, Ariel Stein 12, Daniel Tong 12, Hyun-Cheol Kim 12, Fantine Ngan 13,
A Case Study Using the CMAQ Coupling with Global Dust Models Youhua Tang, Pius Lee, Marina Tsidulko, Ho-Chun Huang, Sarah Lu, Dongchul Kim Scientific Applications.
Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, Urban vs. Rural and Other Comparisons Jerry Gorline and Jeff McQueen  Jerry Gorline, NWS/OST/MDL.
Examination of the impact of recent laboratory evidence of photoexcited NO 2 chemistry on simulated summer-time regional air quality Golam Sarwar, Robert.
Comparison of three photochemical mechanisms (CB4, CB05, SAPRC99) for the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model for O 3 during the 2004 ICARTT study Shaocai.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
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.
Modeling of Ammonia and PM 2.5 Concentrations Associated with Emissions from Agriculture Megan Gore, D.Q. Tong, V.P. Aneja, and M. Houyoux Department of.
Evaluating ammonia (NH 3 ) predictions in the NOAA National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC) using in situ aircraft measurements William Battye,
Air quality real-time forecast of PM 2.5 in Hangzhou metropolitan city with the WRF-CMAQ and WRF/Chem systems: model development and evaluation Shaocai.
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
Adaptation and Application of the CMAQ Modeling System for Real-time Air Quality Forecasting During the Summer of 2004 R. Mathur, J. Pleim, T. Otte, K.
Assimilating AIRNOW Ozone Observations into CMAQ Model to Improve Ozone Forecasts Tianfeng Chai 1, Rohit Mathur 2, David Wong 2, Daiwen Kang 1, Hsin-mu.
Models-3 Users’ Workshop 2003 Research Triangle Park, NC Computational Chemodynamics Laboratory EOHSI - Exposure Measurement & Assessment Division Evaluating.
Sensitivity of Air Quality Model Predictions to Various Parameterizations of Vertical Eddy Diffusivity Zhiwei Han and Meigen Zhang Institute of Atmospheric.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
Post-processing air quality model predictions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at NCEP James Wilczak, Irina Djalalova, Dave Allured (ESRL) Jianping Huang,
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,
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,
Comparison of NOAA/NCEP 12km CMAQ Forecasts with CalNEX WP-3 Measurements Youhua Tang 1,2, Jeffery T. McQueen 2, Jianping Huang 1,2, Marina Tsidulko 1,2,
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
Cloud-mediated radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols simulated by newly developed two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ during 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS over the Gulf.
Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division October 21, 2009 Evaluation of CMAQ.
AN EVALUATION OF THE ETA-CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL AS PART OF NOAA’S NATIONAL PROGRAM CMAQ AIRNOW AIRNOW Brian Eder* Daiwen Kang * Ken Schere* Ken.
Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
The Impact of Lateral Boundary Conditions on CMAQ Predictions over the Continental US: a Sensitivity Study Compared to Ozonsonde Data Youhua Tang*, Pius.
Chemical Data Assimilation: Aerosols - Data Sources, availability and needs Raymond Hoff Physics Department/JCET UMBC.
Ozone and PM 2.5 verification in NAM-CMAQ modeling system at NCEP in relation to WRF/NMM meteorology evaluation Marina Tsidulko, Jeff McQueen, Pius Lee.
Simulation of the indirect radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols by the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model over the continental United States: Preliminary.
W. T. Hutzell 1, G. Pouliot 2, and D. J. Luecken 1 1 Atmospheric Modeling Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.
1 NOAA-EPA’s National Air Quality Forecast Capability: Progress and Plans October 17, 2006 Paula M. Davidson 1, Nelson Seaman 1, Jeff McQueen 1, Rohit.
Development and Initial Applications
Operational and diagnostic evaluations of ozone forecasts by the Eta-CMAQ model suite during the 2002 new England air quality study (NEAQS) Shaocai Yu.
A study of process contributions to PM 2.5 formation during the 2004 ICARTT period using the Eta-CMAQ forecast model over the eastern U.S. Shaocai Yu $,
On the Verification of Particulate Matter Simulated by the NOAA-EPA Air Quality Forecast System Ho-Chun Huang 1, Pius Lee 1, Binbin Zhou 1, Jian Zeng 6,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
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.
Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National.
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
16th Annual CMAS Conference
Simulation of primary and secondary (biogenic and anthropogenic) organic aerosols over the United States by US EPA Models-3/CMAQ: Evaluation and regional.
Quantification of Lightning NOX and its Impact on Air Quality over the Contiguous United States Daiwen Kang, Rohit Mathur, Limei Ran, Gorge Pouliot, David.
Shaocai Yu*, Brian Eder*++, Robin Dennis*++,
Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,
Presentation transcript:

A detailed evaluation of the WRF-CMAQ forecast model performance for O 3, and PM 2.5 during the 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS study Shaocai Yu $, Rohit Mathur +, Daiwen Kang $, Jonathan Pleim +, Daniel Tong $, Brian Eder + and Kenneth Schere + Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division NERL, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC $ On assignment from Science and Technology Corporation + On assignment from Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA

Introduction

CMAQC ommunity M ultiscale A ir Q uality M odel Community Model Multiscale – consistent model structures for interaction of urban through Continental scales Multi-pollutant – ozone, speciated particulate matter, visibility, acid deposition and air toxics

grid cells 259 grid cells Northeast “1x” Domain East “3x” Domain Testing Domain: Summer 2006 Testing Domain: Summer 2006 Experimental: CONUS “5X” 442 grid cells 265 grid cells Operational: EUS “3x” CONUS “5x” Domain This Study

Tracks of ship Tracks of P-3 flights

 Results: Operational evaluation for O 3 at AIRNOW sites  overprediction (8/25-9/30)  Very low O 3 concentrations Obs Model  Underprediction: high conc. range

 Results: Operational evaluation for PM 2.5 at AIRNOW sites due to underestimation of SO 4 2-, NH 4 + (see later) Obs 11.7±7. 9 Mod9.9±6.6 Obs11.7±7.9 Mod9.9±6.6  Mean:  Underpredicted obs PM 2.5 by 16%  Significant underprediction (8/1-8/31)

 Results: Time-series evaluation with ship  Gas species O3Model37.82 Obs35.04 NO2Model11.07 Obs6.14 NOyModel15.91 Obs10.28 COModel Obs SO2Model2.11 Obs3.32 ISOPModel0.23 Obs0.28 HCHOModel2.39 Obs1.82 TOLModel0.30 Obs0.50 ALDModel2.02 Obs1.07 over Gulf of Mexico

 Meteorological parameters  Results: Time-series evaluation with ship data  Model underestimated SO 4 2-, NH 4 +, NO 3 - by -29, -41, -86%, respectively over Gulf of Mexico TempObs28.9 Model28.7 WDIR10Obs167.4 Model164.3 WSPD10Obs3.6 Model3.9 RGRNDObs461.8 Model466.2 Mean

 Results ( PM 2.5 SO 4 2-, NH 4 + ): vertical profiles  Over predicted SO 4 2- aloft but under prediction at surface  CB-4 chemical mechanism produces too much H2O2 (Yu et al., 2007) Layer means for model and observations from the aircraft (P 3 ) during the 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS  The model under predicted NH 4 + both at the surface and aloft, Daily Layer Means

 Results ( Vertical profiles for O 3,CO and SO 2 ) Daily Layer Means SO 2 :  Close to obs at high altitude  Higher than obs at low altitude O 3 :  good at low altitude  Overprediction at high altitudes CO:  good at low altitude  Under-prediction at high altitudes

Daily Layer Means  Results ( Vertical profiles for NOy, NO2 and NO ) NOy, NO 2, NO and HNO 3 :  Generally good at high altitudes  Overprediction at low altitudes

Acetaldehyde:  overprediction Daily Layer Means Toluene, Isoprene:  underestimation  Results ( Vertical profiles of VOC species )

Site 1 ( Washington, D.C.)  Results: Time-series evaluation at PAMS sites

 Results: summary at 4 sites and all 9 PAMS sites site1234Total O3Obs Model NMB COObs Model NMB NOObs Model NMB NO2Obs Model NMB NOxObs Model NMB SO2Obs Model NMB

Contacts: Brian K. Eder

Contacts: Brian K. Eder

Site 2  Results: Time-series evaluation at PAMS sites

 Results : Total sulfur during 2004 ICARTT  Results (preliminary) : Time-series evaluation at PAMS sites Obs4.6±5 NMM5.9±4 ARW6.8±5  Mean  SO 2 : very scatter, over-predict low conc. but under-predict high conc.

 Results : O 3 Vertical profiles Sulfur Dioxide 2002 Summer 12-km Eastern US  Results: Standard CMAQ performance for SO 2