1. Template Meteorological Modeling Protocol for the Three States Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Ralph Morris and Bart Brashers ENVIRON International Corporation Zac Adelman and Aijun Xiu University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 3SAQS Workshop -- CSU Fort Collins, CO May 28, 2013

2. Purpose To perform prognostic meteorological modeling to support the development of Photochemical Grid Model (PGM) inputs –PGM modeling will analyze the air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs, which include visibility and sulfur and nitrogen deposition) at key receptor areas across the western U.S. Goal is for 3SAQS PGM modeling to start in fall 2013 To achieve this schedule requires the meteorological modeling process to start now 2

3. 3SAQS Meteorological Modeling Leverages off of Several Recent Studies Denver RAQC and CDPHE MM5 and WRF sensitivity modeling (ENVIRON & Alpine, Jun 2011) –Develop improved PGM modeling procedures for Denver area –Bridge between MM5 and WRF WDEQ WRF modeling (Alpine & ENVIRON, Sep 2011) –2008 annual 36/12 km and winter episode fine-scale WestJumpAQMS 2008 36/12/4 km WRF modeling (ENVIRON & Alpine, Feb 2012) –Use as template for 3SAQS meteorological modeling –Update to more recent model options and procedures 3

4. 3SAQS Meteorological Modeling Steps Prepare Draft Modeling Protocol – Done –(ENVIRON and UNC, May 2013) 3SAQS Cooperators Comment on Protocol Finalize Modeling Protocol (Jun 2013) Meteorological Modeling (Jun-Jul/Aug 2013) Meteorological Model Application/Evaluation Report (Aug/Sep 2013) PGM Meteorological Inputs (Sep 2013) 4

5. 3SAQS Meteorological Modeling Protocol Model Selection: WRF ARW  Performing better than MM5 that is no longer supported Episode Selection: 2011 –Corresponds to NEI year and not atypical AQ/Met Domain Definition: 36/12/4 km –36 km CONUS Domain (RPO, WestJumpAQMS, etc.) –12 km WESTUS Domain (WestJumpAQMS) –4 km Domain – Need Feedback from 3SAQS:  Option 1: WestJumpAQMS 12 km Inter-Mountain West Processing Domain (IMWD)  Option 2: Smaller 4 km domain tailored for 3SAQS 5

6. WestJumpAQMS 36/12/4 WRF Domain Modeling Domains 6

7. Alternative 3SAQS 36/12/4 km WRF Domain 7

8. 36/12/4 km WRF Domain Definitions RPO Lambert Conformal Projection –Center @ (40°, -97°) & true latitudes of 33° and 45° 36 km CONUS Domain: ~165 x ~130 12 km WESTUS Domain: ~255 x ~255 4 km Domain Options: –WestJumpAQMS IMWD: ~325 x ~525 –Alternative: ~250 x ~290 (~half the size of the IMWD) 8

9. 3SAQS 4 km WRF Domain Definition? WJ WRF modeling w/ 4 km IMWD took 25,000 processing hours each 5-day segment using 8 cores –Elapsed time of ~100 days using 80 cores –Can 4 km domain focus on CO, UT and WY? 9

10. WRF Vertical Domain 37 vertical layers Surface to 50 mb (~19 km above msl) Layers 1 & 2 = 12 m thick each Max layer thickness = 2,000 m For PGM layer collapsing to 25 vertical layers? –Used in WJ, Denver, Allegheny Cty –Collapse 2 WRF layers in lowest 3 layers = 24, 32 and 40 –Max layer thickness = 3,900 m 10

11. 3SAQS WRF Modeling Methodology WRF Version 3.5 released August 18, 2013 Model 2011 plus 15 day spin-up in Dec 2010 Run in 5-day run segments from cold start –First 12 hours used to spin-up WRF First guess fields and lateral BCs from either: –ERA-Interim Reanalysis from ECMWF; or –North American Model (NAM) archives  Summer/winter sensitivity tests USGS 24-category land use data 11

12. Four Dimensional Data Assimilation (FDDA) 3-D Analysis Nudging on 36 and 12 km domains –Winds, Temperature and Mixing Ratio –No Temperature and Mixing Ratio in the PBL Surface Observation Nudging in 4 km domain? –Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS) observations  Winds only  NCDC surface observations  NDBC overwater observations 12

13. WRF Physics Options 13

14. WRF Model Performance Evaluation Quantitative Evaluation –Surface Temperature, Mixing Ratio and Winds –Use METSTAT and AMET evaluation tools –MADIS surface observation database –36, 12 and 4 km domains, subregions, individual states  WestJumpAQMS went down to individual monitor Qualitative Evaluation –Comparison of spatial patterns of precipitation with analysis fields based on observations (PRISM/CPC) –Comparison of spatial distribution of clouds with visual satellite observations 14

15. Model Performance Benchmarks Met Model Performance Benchmarks originally derived after analysis of “good” MM5 performance to support air quality modeling (Emery et al., 2001) –Primarily ozone studies under simple (flat) terrain and simple meteorological conditions (e.g., stationary high pressure)  Sometimes sea breezes involved (e.g., Houston and Los Angeles) As part of WRAP, Kemball-Cook (2005) proposed alternative benchmarks to account for more complex conditions in the inter-mountain west and Alaska –McNally (2009) also proposed alternative benchmarks for complex terrain conditions 15

16. Model Performance Benchmarks ParameterSimpleComplex Temperature Bias≤ ±0.5 K≤ ±2.0 K Temperature Error≤ 2.0 K≤ 3.5 K Mixing Ratio Bias≤ ±1.0 g/kgNA Mixing Ratio Error≤ 2.0 g/kgNA Wind Speed Bias≤ ±0.5 m/s≤ ±1.5 m/s Wind Speed RMSE≤ 2.0 m/s≤ 2.5 m/s Wind Direction Bias≤ ±10 degreesNA Wind Direction Error≤ 30 degrees≤ 55 degrees 16 Simple (Emery et al., 2001) and Complex (Kemball-Cook et al., 2005) Meteorological Model Performance Benchmarks

17. Soccer Plot Example Quantitative Evaluation Temperature Bias vs. Error –36 km CONUS, 12 km WESTUS & 4 km IMWD –Compared against Simple and Complex Benchmarks –From WestJumpAQMS 17

18. Example Qualitative Precipitation Evaluation Jan (top) and Jul (bottom ) CPC analysis fields (left) vs. WRF (right) 18

19. 3SAQS WRF Modeling Next Steps Decide on 4 km domain Comments on Draft Modeling Protocol –By Monday June 10, 2013 Start setting up WRF for 2011 modeling Limited sensitivity tests –ERA ECMWF vs. NAM IC/BC –Other? Need to initiate now to keep on schedule 19