Wildfires Impacts on Regional Air Quality A Case Study on Colorado

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Changes in U.S. Regional-Scale Air.

Advertisements

Assessment of black carbon in the Arctic: new emission inventory of Russia, model evaluation and implications Kan Huang 1, Joshua S. Fu 1,2, Xinyi Dong.

CO budget and variability over the U.S. using the WRF-Chem regional model Anne Boynard, Gabriele Pfister, David Edwards National Center for Atmospheric.

U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.

Cost-effective dynamical downscaling: An illustration of downscaling CESM with the WRF model Jared H. Bowden and Saravanan Arunachalam 11 th Annual CMAS.

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.

Dynamical Downscaling of CCSM Using WRF Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yun-Fat Lam 1, John Drake 1, Kate Evans 2 1 University of Tennessee, USA 2 Oak Ridge.

STUDY OF REGIONAL EXTREME CLIMATE AND ITS IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY IN U.S. Joshua S. Fu, Ph.D. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University.

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

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.

Effects of climate change on future wildfire and its impact on regional air quality Hyun Cheol Kim, Dae-Gyun Lee, and Daewon Byun 1 Institute for Multidimensional.

Improvement of extreme climate predictions from dynamical climate downscaling Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, John B. Drake 1, Yang Liu 2, Jean-Francois Lamarque.

Muntaseer Billah, Satoru Chatani and Kengo Sudo Department of Earth and Environmental Science Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University,

Prediction of Future North American Air Quality Gabriele Pfister, Stacy Walters, Mary Barth, Jean-Francois Lamarque, John Wong Atmospheric Chemistry Division,

Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang Gao University of Tennessee Daniel Jacob, Loretta Mickley and Shiliang Wu Harvard University Oct 20, 2009 The effects.

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.

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.

Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.

Impact of Emissions on Intercontinental Long-Range Transport Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam and Yang Gao, University of Tennessee, USA Rokjin Park, Seoul National.

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.

Thanks to David Diner, David Nelson and Yang Chen (JPL) and Ralph Kahn (NASA/Goddard) Research funded by NSF and EPA Overview of the 2002 North American.

Conceptual Description – Next Generation of Regional Modeling & Analysis Center Workshop on Regional Emissions & Air Quality Modeling Studies July 30,

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

2002 FIRE INVENTORY VISTAS States – First Draft Oct 2003 National RPO meeting Nov 5, 2003.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.

Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.

Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data & Estimating fire emissions: satellite.

OVERVIEW OF ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES: Daniel J. Jacob Ozone and particulate matter (PM) with a global change perspective.

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.

Pollutant Emissions from Large Wildfires in the Western United States Shawn P. Urbanski, Matt C. Reeves, W. M. Hao US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research.

1 Aika Yano, Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Armistead Russell Georgia Institute of Technology October 15, th annual CMAS conference.

Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health J. Jason West Department of Environmental Sciences &

Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.

Importance of chemistry-climate interactions in projections of future air quality Loretta J. Mickley Lu Shen, Daniel H. Cusworth, Xu Yue Earth system models.

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.

Uncertainties in Wildfire Emission Estimates Workshop on Regional Emissions & Air Quality Modeling July 30, 2008 Shawn Urbanski, Wei Min Hao, Bryce Nordgren.

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.

Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.

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.

15th Annual CMAS Conference

Alternative title slide

Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.

Tanya L. Spero1, Megan S. Mallard1, Stephany M

Urszula Parra Maza, Peter Suppan

Improving an Air Quality Decision Support System through the Integration of Satellite Data with Ground-Based, Modeled, and Emissions Data Demonstration.

FUTURE PREDICTION OF SURFACE OZONE OVER EAST ASIA UP TO 2020

Source apportionment of reactive nitrogen deposition

16th Annual CMAS Conference

Ozone pollution (events) in the GFDL AM3 chemistry-climate model

Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs

Presentation by: Dan Goldberg1

17th Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC

Forecasting Exposures to Prescribed Fire Smoke for Health Predictions in Southeastern USA Talat Odman, Ha Ai, Yongtao Hu, Armistead.

Lily Li, Qing Lu, Jingyu An, Cheng Huang

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

Gabriele Curci Model study of the impact of updated European biogenic emission inventory from NatAir on air quality using Chimere.

Heather Simon, Kirk Baker, Norm Possiel, Pat Dolwick, Brian Timin

Daniel J. Jacob Harvard University

Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform

Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL

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.

Improving an Air Quality Decision Support System through the Integration of Satellite Data with Ground-Based, Modeled, and Emissions Data Demonstration.

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.

2019 TEMPO Science Team Meeting

Presentation transcript:

Wildfires Impacts on Regional Air Quality A Case Study on Colorado Cheng-En Yang, Joshua S. Fu, Xinyi Dong, Jian Sun, Qingzhao Zhu, Yang Liu, Yongqiang Liu 10/23/2018

Percentage of Annual Burned Area 1880 (Source: Sargent,1884; Pyne, 2010) Farmers clearing land Hunters leaving fires to burn in abandoned camps 1997-2014 (Source: Global Fire Emissions Database, Version 4.1) Hotter and drier meteorological conditions in the western US

Historical Major Fire Distributions 1980–2013 major fires (>50K acres burned) only Major fire months: April–October November–December: more large fire events in recent years (Data from Yongqiang Liu, USFS)

Annual Wildfires in The US (National Interagency Fire Center; National Interagency Coordination Center ) 10/16 years > 50% Western US (WUS)

Seasonal Dust Concentration Peaks in spring and early summer Dust vs. wildfire contributions on PM2.5 Southwest US (Source: Hand et al., 2016)

Experimental Design Domain: Colorado Duration: 2011−2014 Resolution: 12km x 12km, 25 layers Meteorology: WRF v3.8.1 Initial / boundary conditions: GEOS-Chem v11-01 Emission: 2011, 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI), scaled 2012−2013, fire emissions from Dr. Kirk Baker Scenarios: Base, noFire, and noDust by CMAQ v5.2

Results – Monthly PM2.5 in Base Case Goals (best) MFB ≤ ±30% MFE ≤ 50% Criteria (acceptable) MFB ≤ ±60% MFE ≤ 75% Generally underestimated PM2.5 with some best and some acceptable performance Modeled PM2.5 (μg/m3) Goals (the level of accuracy that is considered to be close to the best a model can be expected to achieve) and Criteria (the level of accuracy that is considered to be acceptable for modeling applications) (Boylan JW, Russell AG. PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmospheric Environment. 2006;40:4946–4959.) 201304, 201206, 201306, 201406, 201110 acceptable AQS/IMPROVE PM2.5 (μg/m3)

2011 Monthly Mean PM2.5 – Dust vs. Fires Base - noDust Base - noFire Observed major wildfires (http://www.denverpost.com) No significant dust contribution Monthly mean max PM2.5 by fires at surface: up to 12.9 µg/m3 Max = 1.5 Max = 12.9 Max = 1.9 Max ~ 0.003 Max ~ 0.001 2011 APR JUN OCT Source: https://www.denverpost.com/2014/06/07/colorado-wildfires-major-fires-from-1971-2013-interactive-graphic/

2012−2013 Monthly Mean PM2.5 by Fires Base - noFire 2013 Base - noFire Observed major wildfires (http://www.denverpost.com) Max = 0.3 Max = 0.3 2012 APR Max = 18.5 Max = 67.6 JUN 2013 Max = 2.3 Max = 0.5 OCT Source: https://www.denverpost.com/2014/06/07/colorado-wildfires-major-fires-from-1971-2013-interactive-graphic/ No big fires in Colorado during 2014

Maximum of Hourly Mean PM2.5 Changes (Unit: µg/m3) Case Year APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Base − noDust 2011 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.03 Base − noFire 18.9 27.2 116.2 4.8 13.1 8.7 32.4 2012 7.1 10.2 54.9 58.9 8.1 10.5 17.4 2013 4.3 3.8 307.2 112.3 9.2 5.1 5.2 2014 8.6 16.4 11.0 11.9 2011 hourly mean PM2.5 attributed by dust: < 0.1 µg/m3 Significant fire contributions on PM2.5 during early summertime

Summary Generally underestimated monthly-mean PM2.5 compared to AQS/IMPROVE sites in Colorado during 2011–2014 No significant dust contributions on 2011 PM2.5 in Colorado, even during spring and early summertime Contribution of fires on PM2.5 Monthly: up to 68 µg/m3 (Jun 2013) Hourly maximum: up to 307 µg/m3 (Jun 2013)

Ongoing Work The western US domain Future wildfire emissions by Dr. Yongqiang Liu using USFS statistical fire model Meteorology CESM WRF MCIP downscale Initial /Boundary Conditions 0.5°×0.5° CAM-Chem CMAQ IC/BC Emission Base 12km CONUS Future 12km WUS CMAQ v5.2 IIASA Global

Acknowledgements This study was supported by the U.S. EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grant R835869. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation.

Thank You Questions?