Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

STN Carbon Field Blank Analysis, Derived Organic Carbon Analysis and IMPROVE blank corrected artifact analysis Bret Schichtel.

Advertisements

Heather Simon, Adam Reff, Benjamin Wells, Neil Frank Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA Ozone Trends Across the United States over a.

Causes of Haze Assessment Mark Green Desert Research Institute Marc Pitchford, Chair Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum.

Attribution of Haze Phase 2 and Technical Support System Project Update AoH Meeting – San Francisco, CA September 14/15, 2005 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource.

FIRE AND BIOFUEL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANNUAL MEAN AEROSOL MASS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES ROKJIN J. PARK, DANIEL J. JACOB, JENNIFER A. LOGAN AGU FALL.

Discussion Space Research Centre. Urbanization and Industrialization: in 2008, more than half of humans live in cities UN Population Report 2007.

Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;

Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Integration of PMF Data into AoH Analyses AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

IMPROVE Network Assessment Plans. IMPROVE Network Assessment Motivation: –EPA’s air quality monitoring budget is not growing, but their requirements are.

IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.

Correction of Particulate Matter Concentrations to Reference Temperature and Pressure Conditions Stefan R. Falke and Rudolf B. Husar Center for Air Pollution.

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.

NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,

Temporal and Spatial Variations of PM2.5 Mass in Georgia Xiaolu Zhang EAS 6410 Spring 2007.

Tribal Causes of Haze Representativeness Assessment Phase I Mark Green, Alissa Smiley, and Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.

Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.

AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

MODELS3 – IMPROVE – PM/FRM: Comparison of Time-Averaged Concentrations R. B. Husar S. R. Falke 1 and B. S. Schichtel 2 Center for Air Pollution Impact.

CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES WRAP Implementation Working Group Meeting San Diego, California ♦ April 17-19, 2007.

Incorporating Monitoring, Modeling, and EI Data into AoH Analysis AoH Meeting, Salt Lake City September 21-22, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.

RPO Monitoring Issues by Marc Pitchford, Ph.D. WRAP Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Co-chair.

VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.

Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.

Causes of Haze Assessment Update for Fire Emissions Joint Forum -12/9/04 Meeting Marc Pitchford.

Draft, 2 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 1. Project Overview Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005.

Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,

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.

Figure 2. Trend of chemical b ext at (a) BLIS1 and (b) SOLA1. The whiskers and boxes indicate 90 th, 80 th, 20 th, and 10 th percentile of b ext for each.

Instrumental Surface Temperature Record Current Weather Data Sources Land vs. Ocean Patterns Instrument Siting Concerns Return Exam II For Next Class:

Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.

Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.

Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Spatial variation of worst dust days (number shows the mean dust conc for WDD)

Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)

Aerosol Pattern over Southern North America Tropospheric Aerosols: Science and Decisions in an International Community A NARSTO Technical Symposium on.

AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Ambient Monitoring Data Summary: Dust WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, & Dust Emissions of Carbon from Fire Fire Emissions Joint Forum Presented by – Dave Randall, Air Sciences Inc. May 23, 2006.

Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists,

Global Pattern of Rain Use Efficiency and Its Impact Factors Instructor: Hongyan Liu Qiuyi Wang.

Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

in the Neversink River Basin, New York

Instrumental Surface Temperature Record

Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area

Reasonable Progress Demonstrations

Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area

Reasonable Progress: Chiricahua NM & Wilderness Area

Instrumental Surface Temperature Record

Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.

AoH Phase 2 Update AoH Meeting – San Diego, CA January 25, 2006

Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning

Case Study for Forest Fire Episode

Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)

Long Term Precipitation Chemistry Monitoring on Vancouver Island

Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.

Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Instrumental Surface Temperature Record

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

TFMM PM Assessment Report

AoH Conference Call September 7, 2004

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

Summary: TFMM trends analysis

Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.

Sulfate Contributions to Regional Haze in the WRAP Region

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Species-Specific Data Trends

Presentation transcript:

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc. Ambient Monitoring Data Summary: Carbon WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 23, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Outline Baseline (2000 – 2004) IMPROVE aerosol extinction budgets for the 20% worst and best visibility days Spatial and temporal variations of particulate organic material (POM or OMC) and elemental carbon (EC) Long-term trends in POM and EC

IMPROVE Monitoring Locations

Baseline Extinction: 20% Worst Days

Baseline Extinction: 20% Best Days

Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Carbon Data shown for 2002 and 2004 20% worst visibility days 2002 and 2004 show similar patterns for carbon EC patterns similar to POM; possible urban influence in southern California? Quarterly summaries, all days included Significant seasonal/annual differences Note scaling differences on maps!

POM Extinction for 20% Worst Visibility Days, 2002 and 2004

EC Extinction for 20% Worst Visibility Days, 2002 and 2004

Quarterly POM Extinction (Mm-1), 2002 2002 hot spots and maximum values vary by quarter Impact from Biscuit Fire in quarter 3 is the most significant event in 2002 16 31 83 31

Quarterly EC Extinction (Mm-1), 2002 2002 quarterly pattern for EC similar to that of POM 5 6 18 6

Quarterly POM Extinction (Mm-1), 2004 2004 pattern of POM different than in 2002 2004 POM levels lower than in 2002 except for northern California fire in quarter 2 16 49 29 18

Quarterly EC Extinction (Mm-1), 2004 11 4 2004 quarterly pattern for EC similar to that of POM 6 6

Quarterly POM Extinction Fraction, 2002 2002 quarterly POM extinction fractions ranges from ~10 – 60% 44 42 61 53

Quarterly POM Extinction Fraction, 2004 50 43 2004 quarterly POM extinction fractions somewhat similar to 2002 values 62 48

Quarterly EC Extinction Fraction, 2002 18 12 2002 quarterly EC extinction fractions ranges from ~5 – 20% Less seasonal dependence than POM 15 18

Quarterly EC Extinction Fraction, 2004 22 12 2004 quarterly EC extinction fractions ranges from ~5 – 20% Less seasonal dependence than POM 14 19

Historical Trends in 20% Worst Days: Total and POM Extinction 16 year trends (1989 – 2004) required 12 complete years of data 8 year trends (1997 – 2004) required 6 complete years of data Theil slopes (Mm-1/yr) calculated for all sites with sufficient data P-values of 0.2 required to identify trend as significant Changes in monitoring or analytical protocol over the years may affect trends

Trend Observations Generally not much correlation between total extinction and carbon extinction trends Many sites show no significant trend for carbon Where POM trends are significant, POM extinction often shows an upward trend Where EC trends are significant, EC extinction often shows a downward trend

Layout of Trend Maps 16-yr Total Extinction Trends 16-yr POM or EC Extinction Trends 8-yr POM or EC Extinction Trends