Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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,

Advertisements

Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.

VISTAS Modeling Overview May 25, 2004 Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtns. National Park.

Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of CMAQ with FAQS Episode of August 11 th -20 th, 2000 Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Maudood Khan and Armistead.

Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.

Talat Odman and Yongtao Hu, Georgia Tech Zac Adelman, Mohammad Omary and Uma Shankar, UNC James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim, Georgia DNR.

Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.

Use of Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling and the St. Louis Super Site Data to Model PM 2.5 Concentrations in the St. Louis Area Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Jeremiah,

PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,

O UTLINE Why are we interested in linking GEOS- CHEM with regional air quality model (CMAQ)? Technical issues to consider when linking GEOS-CHEM & CMAQ.

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

Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VISTA Technical Lead for Air.

Remote Sensing and Modeling of the Georgia 2007 Fires Eun-Su Yang, Sundar A. Christopher, Yuling Wu, Arastoo P. Biazar Earth System Science Center University.

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.

Evaluation and Application of Air Quality Model System in Shanghai Qian Wang 1, Qingyan Fu 1, Yufei Zou 1, Yanmin Huang 1, Huxiong Cui 1, Junming Zhao.

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.

MELANIE FOLLETTE-COOK KEN PICKERING, PIUS LEE, RON COHEN, ALAN FRIED, ANDREW WEINHEIMER, JIM CRAWFORD, YUNHEE KIM, RICK SAYLOR IWAQFR NOVEMBER 30, 2011.

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

VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.

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.

PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.

Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.

Models-3 Users’ Workshop 2003 Research Triangle Park, NC Computational Chemodynamics Laboratory EOHSI - Exposure Measurement & Assessment Division Evaluating.

Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.

Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada M. Lepage, J.W. Boulton, X. Qiu and M. Gauthier RWDI AIR Inc. C. di Cenzo Environment Canada, P&YR.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.

1 MANE-VU Modeling Plans Inter-RPO Modeling Meeting May 25, 2004 Shan He, Emily Savelli, Jung-Hun Woo, John Graham and Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM.

Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,

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.

Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.

VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003

Modeling & Monitoring / Data Analysis Joint Session RPO National Workgroup Meeting December 3, 2002, 1:00 - 3:00 Crown Plaza, Dallas, TX.

Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.

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.

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain Data Warehouse (IWDW) Model Performance Evaluation CAMx and CMAQ 2011b University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

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.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

Xiaomeng Jin and Arlene Fiore

VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling

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

Overview of Emissions Processing for the 2002 Base Case CMAQ Modeling

SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.

Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,

MANE-VU Emissions Inventory Update

Model Future: Nesting with Regional Models

CRC NARSTO-Northeast Modeling Study

Kirk Baker, Heather Simon, Gobeail McKinley, Neal Fann, Elizabeth Chan

Wildfires Impacts on Regional Air Quality A Case Study on Colorado

VISTAS Grid Resolution Sensitivity

Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform

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

VISTAS Modeling Overview

Regional Modeling Update

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

Analysis of the MM5-Simulated Surface Fields with Three PBL schemes over the Eastern U.S. during 6-16 August 2002 Winston, Mike Ku, and Gopal Sistla NYSEC-DAR.

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

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

RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.

PGM Boundary conditions

WRAP 2014 Regional Modeling

Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 Estimated 8-hr Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations Kirk Baker Donna Kenski Lake Michigan.

Presentation transcript:

Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium - MRPO National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26, 2004

Outline Comparison of Model Results to IMPROVE Measurements (24-hour average) MRPO, VISTAS, and MANE-VU July 13–27, 1999 and January 1-19, 2002 SHEN, MACA, and UPBU Comparison of Model Results to Pittsburgh Super Site Measurements (Hourly) MRPO and VISTAS July 13–27, 1999

Summary of Modeling Systems MRPO VISTAS MANE-VU AQ Model CAMx4 (CB-IV) CMAQ (CB-IV) CMAQ (SAPRC-99) Meteorological Model (MM5) Pleim-Xiu LSM Pleim-Chang PBL Pleim-Xiu LSM Pleim-Chang PBL Emissions Model EMS-2003 SMOKE Emissions Inventory 1999 NEI v2 CMU NH3 1999 NEI v.2 CMU/EPA NH3 1999 NEI v.2 EGAS Horizontal Grid Structure Eastern US (36 km) Continental US (36 km) Continental US (36 km) Vertical Layers 14 (6km) 19 (15km) 9 (15 km) Boundary Conditions EPA Default GEOS-CHEM Seasonal (2001)

Comparison of Model Results to IMPROVE Measurements

IMPROVE vs. Models

IMPROVE vs. Models

IMPROVE vs. Models

IMPROVE vs. Models

IMPROVE vs. Models

IMPROVE vs. Models

Comparison of Model Results to Pittsburgh Super Site Measurements

Pittsburgh Super Site – July 2001

Summary Given the preliminary nature and diverse modeling approaches the results seem to agree fairly well None of the modeling approaches seems to be consistently closer to the observed values; performance varies by day and specie The three modeling systems compare reasonably well to the IMPROVE measurements on ~ 70% of the days, but can show large discrepancies on the other days. Hourly model output at the Pittsburgh Super Site are very consistent on a diurnal and synoptic scale Only one station but the results are encouraging Need to evaluate the response of the various modeling systems to changes in emissions at specific receptor locations.