ADAGIO (Atmospheric Deposition Analysis Generated by optimal Interpolation from Observations): Project plans and status A.S. Cole1, A. Robichaud2, M.D.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
Advertisements

Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Perspectives in Designing and Operating a Regional Ammonia Monitoring Network Gary Lear USEPA Clean Air Markets Division.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
PREV ’AIR : An operational system for large scale air quality monitoring and forecasting over Europe
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
REFERENCES Maria Val Martin 1 C. L. Heald 1, J.-F. Lamarque 2, S. Tilmes 2 and L. Emmons 2 1 Colorado State University 2 NCAR.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
Maps of PM2.5 over the U.S. Derived from Regional PM2.5 and Surrogate Visibility and PM10 Monitoring Data Stefan R. Falke and Rudolf B. Husar Center for.
Near Real Time analyzed maps of air quality in Europe Cécile Honoré, Laurence Rouïl.
Next Gen AQ model Need AQ modeling at Global to Continental to Regional to Urban scales – Current systems using cascading nests is cumbersome – Duplicative.
Modeling BC Sources and Sinks - research plan Charles Q. Jia and Sunling Gong University of Toronto and Environment 1 st annual NETCARE workshop.
Modelling of Acid deposition in South Asia Magnuz Engardt Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) Introduction to Acid deposition.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
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.
Declustering in the Spatial Interpolation of Air Quality Data Stefan R. Falke and Rudolf B. Husar.
Dataset Development within the Surface Processes Group David I. Berry and Elizabeth C. Kent.
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.
GEM/AQ Simulations on Intercontinental Transports Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada.
Numerical Simulation of Atmospheric Loadings of Mercury from a Coal Fired Power Plant to Lake Erie S. M. Daggupaty, C. M. Banic and P. Blanchard Air Quality.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.
Evapotranspiration Estimates over Canada based on Observed, GR2 and NARR forcings Korolevich, V., Fernandes, R., Wang, S., Simic, A., Gong, F. Natural.
Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,
INTEGRATING SATELLITE AND MONITORING DATA TO RETROSPECTIVELY ESTIMATE MONTHLY PM 2.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE EASTERN U.S. Christopher J. Paciorek 1 and Yang.
Wildfire activity as been increasing over the past decades Cites such as Salt Lake City are surrounded by regions at a high risk for increased wildfire.
Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.
NOAA Northeast Regional Climate Center Dr. Lee Tryhorn NOAA Climate Literacy Workshop April 2010 NOAA Northeast Regional Climate.
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
Impact of various emission inventories on modelling results; impact on the use of the GMES products Laurence Rouïl
Encast Global forecasting.
N Engl J Med Jun 29;376(26): doi: 10
Gary Lear U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation
(Towards) anthropogenic CO2 emissions through inverse modelling
Relative contributions of NH3, NO2, NH4+ and NO3- to dry deposition of Nitrogen at an agricultural site in the Indo-Gangetic Plain of India Saumya Singh,
Tanya L. Spero1, Megan S. Mallard1, Stephany M
Global Circulation Models
Lupu, Semeniuk, Kaminski, Mamun, McConnell
Overview of Downscaling
Overview of Deterministic Computer Models
A New Method for Evaluating Regional Air Quality Forecasts
Thirty-year Time Series of Merged Raingauge-Satellite Rainfall Data over Ethiopia Tufa Dinku1, Stephen Connor1, David Grimes2, Kinfe Hailemariam3, Ross.
A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ
Charles University in Prague
Measurement Model Fusion for Acid Deposition Bob Vet, Elton Chan, Chul-Un Ro, Mike Shaw Bratts Lake, SK Bratts Lake, SK.
Nitrogen Deposition: Measurement Techniques and Field Studies
Rain Gauge Data Merged with CMORPH* Yields: RMORPH
Recent Updates to the Canadian Operational Regional Air Quality Deterministic Prediction System Michael Moran, Sylvie Gravel, Verica Savic-Jovcic, Alexandru.
A 1-year simulation of atmospheric concentrations and deposition over Europe and UK Alan Cocks, Vicky Lucas, Ian Rodgers, and Ian Teasdale RWEInnogy Environment.
Introduction and Overview of Course
Impact on Recent North American Air Quality Forecasts of Replacing a Retrospective U.S. Emissions Inventory with a Projected Inventory Michael Moran1,
Using CMAQ to Interpolate Among CASTNET Measurements
Junhua Zhang and Wanmin Gong
Jan Horálek (CHMI) Peter de Smet, Frank de Leeuw (RIVM),
Carbon Model-Data Fusion
Measuring Atmospheric N Inputs
NOAA Objective Sea Surface Salinity Analysis P. Xie, Y. Xue, and A
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
Joanna Struzewska Warsaw University of Technology
Alison Redington* and Derrick Ryall* Dick Derwent**
Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Time-Integrated Particle Measurements : Status in Canada
Data Assimilation of TEMPO NO2: Winds, Emissions and PBL mixing
Summary: TFMM trends analysis
Maarten van Loon and Leonor Tarrasón (met.no/EMEP)
Update on activities of Bulgaria within/related to EMEP
Update on specifying boundary conditions for regional-scale air quality models Mike Barna, NPS-ARD RTOWG call 9/10/19.
Presentation transcript:

ADAGIO (Atmospheric Deposition Analysis Generated by optimal Interpolation from Observations): Project plans and status A.S. Cole1, A. Robichaud2, M.D. Moran2, P.A. Makar2, A. Lupu2, M. Shaw1, V. Fortin3, R. Vet1 1Measurements and Analysis Research Section, Environment Canada; 2Modelling and Integration Research Section, Environment Canada; 3Environmental Numerical Weather Prediction Research, Environment Canada Introduction II. Measurement Input (cont.) IV. Optimal Interpolation The goal of the ADAGIO project is to improve maps of wet, dry and total annual deposition of nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) in Canada and the United States by combining observed and modelled data. Measurements of wet deposition and air concentrations of deposited compounds provide the most accurate values at and near measurement sites, but cannot provide reliable regional estimates of deposition where sites are sparse. Atmospheric models that include meteorology, emissions, transport, chemistry and deposition of key N and S compounds provide complete spatial coverage and the ability to account for non-linear effects of meteorology, topography and chemistry, but often have biases and uncertainties compared to measured concentrations and fluxes. This project will use optimal interpolation (OI) techniques to combine the complementary advantages of measurements and models. The measured concentrations of nitrogen and sulphur species in air and precipitation (see Table 1) will be fusion with the predicted concentrations from GEM-MACH using OI techniques. Similarly, measured precipitation amounts from sites across North America (see Figs. 2b and 3) are used to improve precipitation fields from GEM. These OI techniques essentially minimize the analysis error variance given observation and model errors. as well as the measured and modelled data, additional information are also be needed, such as the error statistics, bias adjustment, and the scale over which the measurements can be considered representative. The analysis can also incorporate built-in quality control procedures to flag irregular data. Table 1 and Figure 2 summarize the available chemistry measurement networks and species that will be used in the 2010 analysis. A subset of the measurements will be left out of the analysis to be used for post-analysis validation. Climate stations with precipitation data that are currently used in the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) are shown in Figure 3. The higher density of data compared to wet chemistry sites alone will result in the best possible precipitation field. Figure 5: CaPA 24-hour precipitation fields around the Great Lakes region, May 16, 2014 The Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) is an operational product that generates near-real-time estimates of 6- and 24-hour precipitation amounts from GEM and ground and radar observations [Mahfouf et al. 2007]. It is continually evolving to incorporate additional data and QC methods. For ADAGIO, precipitation amounts from the precipitation chemistry measurement sites will also be incorporated into the CaPA analysis. The current operational version of CaPA also incorporates radar data; these are not available for 2010 but will be used in future ADAGIO analyses. Figure 3: Climate stations currently used for precipitation amounts from various networks (SYNOP, METAR, RMCQ, US COOP). Colors represent observed rainfall on a specific day. I. Overview An overview of the inputs, model-measurement fusion steps, and outputs of the ADAGIO approach is shown in Figure 1. The initial testing will be done using the year 2010 to align with parallel model inter-comparisons at Environment Canada. In future, the analysis will be used to generate annual deposition maps. The following sections describe the measurement and model inputs and the optimal interpolation techniques. Table 1: Sources of compiled air and precipitation measurement data for 2010 Network Area Species measured Sites Type of network Frequency of observations CAPMoN Canada Gas: SO2, HNO3; Particle: SO42-, NO3-, NH4+ 15 Rural Daily NAPS Gas: SO2, NO, NOx 131 Mostly urban Hourly (dichotomous) Gas: SO2 , HNO3 PM2.5: SO42-, NO3-, NH4+ 28 Every 3 days (24 hr avg.) AQS US Gas: SO2, NO2 468 IMPROVE PM2.5: SO42-, NO3- 172 Mostly CASTNET Gas: SO2, HNO3 84 Weekly Precipitation: SO42-, NO3-, NH4+ 29 NADP/NTN 241 NADP/AIRMoN 7 Daily (when precip occurs) NBPMN Canada (New Brunswick) 12 NSPSN Canada (Nova Scotia) 1 Figure 1: Schematic of ADAGIO methodology for generation of wet, dry and total deposition maps Precipitation concentration maps Wet deposition maps Modelled dry deposition velocities (GEM-MACH) Air concentration maps Dry deposition maps Total deposition maps Measured air concentrations Modelled air concentrations Measured precipitation Modelled precipitation (GEM) Measured precipitation concentrations Modelled precipitation concentrations Precipitation maps Optimal interpolation (CaPA) OI methods have also been developed and used successfully for improving concentration maps of air pollutants, such as ozone and fine particulate matter, relative to GEM-MACH alone [Robichaud and Menard 2014]. These methods have now been refined for SO2 and NO2. As seen in Fig. 6, when the resulting analysis and the original model are compared to validation data not used in the analysis, the analysis has lower biases and random errors than the model. The OI approach will be refined and tested for additional air and precipitation species listed in Table 2. Figure 6: Bias (lower lines) and random error (upper lines) of GEM-MACH (black) and of OI analysis (green) of hourly SO2 for July 2014. III. Model Input V. Progress and Next Steps Modelled inputs to ADAGIO will come from Environment Canada’s GEM (Global Environmental Multiscale) numerical weather prediction model, and its counterpart GEM-MACH (Global Environmental Multiscale model – Modelling Air quality and Chemistry). GEM-MACH adds to GEM in-line chemistry modules and emission inventories in order to simulate chemistry and deposition. [Something here about v2 specifically?] While different grid configurations are supported by GEM, the version used will cover North America at 10 km resolution. Hourly outputs of concentrations and fluxes will be aggregated or averaged to measurement periods for the optimal interpolation. Dry deposition velocities of gases and particles from the model will be used directly (Fig. 1). An updated version of GEM-MACH has completed a 2010 simulation run, with concentrations and deposition velocities archived. Measurement data for 2010 have been compiled, rolled up to weekly values and, for sulphur species, compared with GEM-MACH predictions. [Add a sentence here about improvements in bias compared to an earlier version?] Precipitation maps from CaPA are archived for 2010 and will be updated using values from precipitation chemistry sites. An optimal interpolation methodology has been developed for hourly ozone, SO2, NO2 , fine and coarse particulates for near real time air quality purposes and is currently being adapted for additional sulphur and nitrogen species on longer time scales (Robichaud et al., 2015, submitted to AQAH). Routine archiving of GEM-MACH concentrations and fluxes will be arranged for future years. II. Measurement Input NAPS NAPSdichot CAPMoN IMPROVE AQS CASTNET CAPMoN NBPMN NSPSN NADP Figure 4: Sample output from GEM-MACH v2: January 2010 average SO2 surface air concentration Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Verica Savic-Jovcic for contributing Fig. 4 and Gary Lear for travelling great distances to provide valuable input. REFERENCES ? Figure 2: Air (left) and precipitation (right) measurement sites listed in Table 1