Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, NERL Overview and Evaluation of AQMEII Phase 2 Coupled Simulations over.

Advertisements

Comparison of the CAM and RRTMG Radiation Schemes in WRF and coupled WRF-CMAQ models Aijun Xiu, Zac Adelman, Frank Binkowski, Adel Hanna, Limei Ran Center.

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory Overview of the Two-way Coupled WRF-CMAQ.

Limei Ran 1,2, Robert Gilliam 3, Jonathan Pleim 3, Adel Hanna 1, William Benjey 3 1 Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy Development, Institute.

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

Air Quality-Climate Interactions Aijun Xiu Carolina Environmental Program.

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.

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

Jerold Herwehe 1, Kiran Alapaty 1, Chris Nolte 1, Russ Bullock 1, Tanya Otte 1, Megan Mallard 1, Jimy Dudhia 2, and Jack Kain 3 1 Atmospheric Modeling.

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.

Page1 PAGE 1 The influence of MM5 nudging schemes on CMAQ simulations of benzo(a)pyrene concentrations and depositions in Europe Volker Matthias, GKSS.

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.

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.

Meteorological Service of Canada Environment Canada Cloud Cover Changes and Their Impacts on Solar Energy Production in North America PERD Climate Change.

Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.

Non-hydrostatic Numerical Model Study on Tropical Mesoscale System During SCOUT DARWIN Campaign Wuhu Feng 1 and M.P. Chipperfield 1 IAS, School of Earth.

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

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.

Development and Preliminary Results of Image Processing Tools for Meteorology and Air Quality Modeling Limei Ran Center for Environmental Modeling for.

Aerosols in WRF-CHEM Eric Stofferahn George Mason University _07:00:00 (UTC)

Seasonal Modeling (NOAA) Jian-Wen Bao Sara Michelson Jim Wilczak Curtis Fleming Emily Piencziak.

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 +,

IACETH Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Indirect aerosol effects in EC earth Trude Storelvmo and Ulrike Lohmann, ETH-Zurich.

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way coupled system: Part I David Wong,

Morrison/Gettelman/GhanAMWG January 2007 Two-moment Stratiform Cloud Microphysics & Cloud-aerosol Interactions in CAM H. Morrison, A. Gettelman (NCAR),

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.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer Studying.

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory Simple urban parameterization for.

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,

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.

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.

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.

Assessment of aerosol direct effects on surface radiation in the northern hemisphere using two-way WRF-CMAQ model Jia Xing, Jonathan Pleim, Rohit Mathur,

Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,

Update on the 2-moment stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in CAM Hugh Morrison and Andrew Gettelman National Center for Atmospheric Research CCSM Atmospheric.

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.

Aerosol Indirect Effects in CAM and MIRAGE Steve Ghan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Jean-Francois Lamarque, Peter Hess, and Francis Vitt, NCAR.

Application of Ice Microphysics to CAM Xiaohong Liu, S. J. Ghan (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) M. Wang, J. E. Penner (University of Michigan)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.

Development and Initial Applications

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.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Examining the impact of aerosol direct.

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 $,

12 th annual CMAS conference Impact of Biomass Burning Aerosols on Regional Climate over Southeast US Peng Liu, Yongtao Hu, Armistead G. Russell, Athanasios.

Aerosol 1 st indirect forcing in the coupled CAM-IMPACT model: effects from primary-emitted particulate sulfate and boundary layer nucleation Minghuai.

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, NERL AQMEII Phase 2: Overview and WRF/CMAQ Application over North America.

Aerosol Indirect Effects in CAM A. Gettelman (NCAR), F. Vitt (NCAR), P. Hess (Cornell) H. Morrison (NCAR), P. R. Field (Met Office), S.J. Ghan (PNNL)

Modal Aerosol Treatment in CAM: Evaluation and Indirect Effect X. Liu, S. J. Ghan, R. Easter (PNNL) J.-F. Lamarque, P. Hess, N. Mahowald, F. Vitt, H. Morrison,

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way Coupled System: Part II Jonathan.

Wang Jiandong 1, Wang Shuxiao 1, Zhao Bin 1, Wang Long 1, David Wong 2, Jonathan Pleim 2, Hao Jiming 1 1. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 2. 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.

Status of CAM, March 2004 Phil Rasch. Differences between CAM2 and CAM3 (standard physics version) Separate liquid and ice phases Advection, sedimentation.

15th Annual CMAS Conference

H. Morrison, A. Gettelman (NCAR) , S. Ghan (PNL)

Simulation of the Arctic Mixed-Phase Clouds

A model of sea salt aerosol for Cape Grim Preliminary investigations

ASM Project Update: Atmospheric Modeling

Simulation of primary and secondary (biogenic and anthropogenic) organic aerosols over the United States by US EPA Models-3/CMAQ: Evaluation and regional.

An Overview of the NARCCAP WRF Simulations and Analysis

Chris Misenis*, Xiaoming Hu, and Yang Zhang

A. Gettelman, X. Liu, H. Morrison, S. Ghan

The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Momei, a postdoc from Georgia Tech.

Modelling atmospheric transport of Benzo(a)Pyrene with CMAQ

Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,

WRAP 2014 Regional Modeling

Presentation transcript:

Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, Indirect radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols in the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ: model description, development, evaluation and regional analysis Shaocai Yu, Rohit Mathur, Jonathan Pleim, David Wong, Rob Gilliam, Steve Howard*, and S.T. Rao* Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, National Exposure Research Lab, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC 27711 *retired

Largest uncertainty (IPCC, 2007): indirect aerosol forcing

Model Description (Configuration) Calculation of indirect aerosol forcing (IAF) in WRF-CMAQ Aerosols: number, size, chemical composition Coupled WRF-CMAQ aerosol simulation Sulfate, BC, OC, dust CAM ice nucleation scheme (Liu et al. 2007) Aerosol activation scheme (Abdul-Razzak and Ghan, 2000, 2002) Updraft velocity, ice water content (WRF), temperature Updraft velocity, liquid water content (WRF) Cloud microphysics (Morrison): cloud vapor and water, rain, ice, snow, graupel CCN, Cloud droplet number Ice number Conc., IN Radiative transfer model: CAM: re (4-20) mm; RRTMg: re(2-60) mm Cloud effective radius (re), COD Ice effective radius (rie), IOD Met fields (WRF) The 1st and 2nd IAF Glaciation IAF

Model domain (12 km and 4 km) 12 km domain over CONUS PM2.5 4 km nested domain over Gulf of Mexico

Results: (August, 2006) Evaluation for PM2.5 at AIRNOW sites Model gets obs PM2.5 reasonably good Over Houston domain, model overestimated PM 2.5, especially for 4-km simulation WRF-CMAQ-CAM (CAM) WRF-CMAQ-RRTMG (RRTMG) WRF-CAM (CAM-D) WRF-RRTMG (RRTMG-D) NMB (%) CAM RRTMG East US (long<100) 5.3 -0.1 West US (long>100) 0.4 -5.2 Houston domain (12km) 37.1 2.0 Houston domain (4km) 65.4

Results: PM2.5 composition over the CONUS (12-km) (August) Model underestimates SO4 over E US but overestimate OC, EC,TC at IMPROVE sites SO4 NMB (%) E US W US CAM RRTMG CASTNet SO4 -27.6 -32.1 -23.9 -24.5 NH4 -23.0 -27.7 -34.1 -35.9 NO3 19.4 9.7 -80.6 -82.3 SO2 101.1 98.9 47.0 47.5 IMPROVE PM25 -13.2 -16.8 15.0 7.1 -12.5 -18.9 13.9 11.6 50.4 22.4 -51.9 -61.1 OC 25.9 23.8 51.4 38.6 EC 54.9 52.2 110.6 94.5 TC 31.9 29.7 59.2 46.0 STN -0.7 -6.2 1.5 -5.3 -7.9 -14.8 -4.2 -9.5 2.8 -6.7 -47.3 -53.6 64.2 37.1 -81.1 -84.1 2.2 -0.9 -7.0 NH4 NO3 OC TC

Results:Evaluation at STN sites (August) over the Houston PM25 SO4 overestimated obs PM2.5 because of TC overestimation 12-km run underestimates SO4, 4-km run is good. NMB CAM-4km rrtmg-4km PM25 92.4 53.4 SO4 6.7 -7.6 NH4 -22.2 -61.1 NO3 -16.4 -33.8 TC 142.7 89.1 Cam-12km rrtmg-12km 43.1 12.7 -42.6 -48.0 -57.3 -84.3 -56.9 -62.9 103.1 69.3 NH4 NO3 TC

Results (Shortwave cloud forcing) Interpolate to 12 km resolution for model (August) WRF (only) WRF-CMAQ CAM 12 km (CERES) RRTMG

Results (Shortwave cloud forcing) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) WRF (only) WRF-CMAQ CAM 4 km (CERES) RRTMG

Results (Shortwave cloud forcing) Comparison of Monthly means SWCF (August): Land 12-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF-CMAQ) are the best with very good correlation coefficients 12-km runs still underestimate SWCF over land Land Ocean Obs (CERES) Corr NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 0.96 -18.18 0.90 1.21 WRF (only) 0.50 -5.01 -0.55 53.86 RRTMG -27.44 0.93 -18.91 0.72 -30.45 -0.48 14.90 Ocean

Results (Shortwave cloud forcing) Comparison of Monthly means SWCF (August): 4-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF-CMAQ) are the best 4-km runs are better than 12-km runs for SWCF, less underestimation. Obs (CERES) NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ -5 WRF (only) -24 RRTMG -7 -28

Results (Longwave cloud forcing) Comparison of Monthly means LWCF (August): Land 12-km WRF-CMAQ simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing are the best with very good correlation coefficients 12-km WRF-CMAQ runs underestimate LWCF Land Ocean Obs (CERES) Corr NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 0.82 -31.57 0.90 -23.18 WRF (only) 0.26 40.15 0.38 168.46 RRTMG 0.83 -33.53 -30.56 0.36 -6.60 0.45 95.29 Ocean

Results (Longwave cloud forcing) Comparison of Monthly means LWCF (August): 4-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF_CMAQ) are the best 4-km runs are better than 12-km runs for LWCF, less bias Obs (CERES) NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 3 WRF (only) 4 RRTMG -8 -13

Results (cloud optical depth (COD)) Comparison of Monthly means COD (August): Land 12-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF-CMAQ) are the best 12-km runs underestimate COD Land Ocean Obs (CERES) Corr NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 0.86 -31.98 0.88 -2.51 WRF (only) 0.71 -69.11 0.41 -65.42 RRTMG 0.85 -57.77 0.87 -42.76 0.80 -91.40 0.45 -90.53 Ocean

Results (COD) Obs (CERES) NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ -7 WRF (only) -75 RRTMG Comparison of Monthly means COD (August): 4-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF-CMAQ) are the best 4-km WRF-CMAQ runs are better than 12-km runs for COD, less underestimation Obs (CERES) NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ -7 WRF (only) -75 RRTMG -31 -89

Results (Cloud Fraction) Comparison of Monthly means CldFrac (August): Land 12-km simulations with both indirect and direct aerosol forcing (WRF-CMAQ) are the best 12-km runs underestimate cloud fraction slightly Land Ocean Obs (CERES) Corr NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 0.97 -8.67 0.87 -0.83 WRF (only) 0.30 37.51 -0.06 41.60 RRTMG -13.49 0.90 -10.28 0.39 24.02 -0.17 30.18 Ocean

Results (Cloud Fraction) Comparison of Monthly means CldFrac (August): For 4-km runs, all models performed very well with slight overestimation 4-km runs are very good Obs (CERES) NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 12 WRF (only) 6 RRTMG 1 7

Contacts: Brian K. Eder email: eder@hpcc.epa.gov www.arl.noaa.gov/ www.epa.gov/asmdnerl

Results (Cloud effective radius) Interpolate to 12 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) 12 km (CERES) CAM RRTMG

Results (Cloud optical depth (COD)) Interpolate to 12 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) 12 km (CERES) CAM RRTMG

Results (Longwave cloud forcing) Interpolate to 12 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) CAM 12 km (CERES) RRTMG

Results (Cloud Fraction (CldFrac)) Interpolate to 12 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) 12 km (CERES) CAM RRTMG

Coupler Two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ modeling System (Interaction and feedback) Meteorological Model WRF modeling System: x=12 km, 4km 34 layers Land-Surface: PX LSM PBL: ACM2 Cloud Physics: Morrison Cumulus: Kain-Fritsch, not for 4km Shortwave: RRTMg, or CAM Longwave: RRTMg, Chemical Transport Model CMAQ Modeling System: Photochemistry: CB05 59 organic and inorganic species, 156 chemical reactions Aerosol module: AE6 3 lognormal modes, organic and inorganic Emission: SMOKE In-line emission for biogenic species AQPREP Prepares virtual CMAQ compatible input met. files Coupler CMAQ-mixactivate: cloud drop, ice number conc. Direct forcing: Aerosol size, composition, conc.

Results (preliminary): Temp along ship track over the Gulf of Mexico Models got Temp. very well Obs (Ship) 28.49 NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 28.19 -1.1 WRF-CMAQ (direct) 28.57 0.3 WRF (only) 28.68 0.7 RRTMG 28.89 1.4 28.86 1.3 28.88

Results (Cloud Fraction (CldFrac)) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) 4 km (CERES) CAM RRTMG

Results (Cloud optical depth (COD)) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) 4 km (CERES) CAM RRTMG

Results (Longwave cloud forcing) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) CAM 4 km (CERES) RRTMG

Site location

Tracks of P-3 flights Tracks of ship

Results (Cloud Effective Radius) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) 4 km (CERES) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) CAM RRTMG

Results (Cloud Effective radius) Comparison of Monthly means CldRadius (August): CERES measure CldEffc at cloud top, it is difficult to compare with the models WRF-CMAQ underestimate obs by ~60% Mean: Obs (CERES) 12.59 NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 5.04 -60 WRF (only) 14.00 11 RRTMG 4.23 -66

Results (Cloud Effective Radius) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (September) 4 km (CERES) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) CAM RRTMG

Results (Cloud Effective radius) Comparison of Monthly means Cldradius (September): WRF-CMAQ underestimate obs by ~40% Mean: (mm) Obs (CERES) 11.11 NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 6.31 -43 WRF (only) 14.00 26 RRTMG 5.24 -53

Results (Ice Effective Radius) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (August) 4 km (CERES) WRF (only) WRF-CMAQ CAM RRTMG

Results (Ice Effective radius) Comparison of Monthly means CldEffi (August): CERES measure CldEffi at cloud top, it is difficult to compare with the models WRF-CMAQ overestimate obs by ~70% CAM is slightly better than RRTMG Mean: (mm) Obs (CERES) 27.10 NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 44.87 66 WRF (only) 20.65 -24 RRTMG 47.29 74 20.89 -23

Results (Ice Effective Radius) Interpolate to 4 km resolution for model (September) 4 km (CERES) WRF-CMAQ WRF (only) CAM RRTMG

Results (Ice Effective radius) Comparison of Monthly means CldEffi (September): WRF-CMAQ overestimate obs by ~160% Mean: (mm) Obs (CERES) 21.69 NMB (%) CAM WRF-CMAQ 56.49 160 WRF (only) 20.86 -4 RRTMG 57.75 166 20.98 -3