JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Limei Ran 1, Uma Shankar 1, Ellen Cooter 2, Aijun Xiu 1, Neil Davis 1 1 Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy Development, Institute for the Environment,
Advertisements

A numerical simulation of urban and regional meteorology and assessment of its impact on pollution transport A. Starchenko Tomsk State University.
A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.
FEST-C for Bi-directional CMAQ: Update Ellen Cooter U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Lab, Research Triangle Park, NC Verel Benson Benson Consulting,
Constraining Anthropogenic Emissions of Fugitive Dust with Dynamic Transportable Fraction and Measurements Chapel Hill, NC October 22, 2009 Daniel Tong.
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.
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
Alan H Huber Physical Scientist; PhD, QEP NOAA, ASMD, in partnership with the US EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory, RTP, NC, USA THE 5TH ANNUAL.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Integrating Cropland Management into.
Atmospheric Mercury Simulation with CMAQ Version Russ Bullock - NOAA Air Resources Laboratory* Kathy Brehme - Computer Sciences Corp. 5 th Annual.
8 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling – A&WMA AB3 Comments on Nonstandard Modeling Approaches By Ron Petersen, CPP Inc Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins.
Tanya L. Otte and Robert C. Gilliam NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with U.S. EPA National Exposure Research.
Modeling the Co-Benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants STI-6102 Stephen Reid, Ken Craig, Garnet Erdakos Sonoma Technology, Inc. Jonathan.
Jerold A. Herwehe Atmospheric Turbulence & Diffusion Division Air Resources Laboratory National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 456 S. Illinois.
Land Processes Group, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL Response of Atmospheric Model Predictions at Different Grid Resolutions Maudood.
UNCLASSIFIED Initial Study of HPAC Modeled Dispersion Driven by MM5 With and Without Urban Canopy Parameterizations Dr. Chris Kiley – NGC Dr. Jason Ching.
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory | Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division| A Tale of Two Models: A Comparison.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
1 Recent Advances in the Modeling of Airborne Substances George Pouliot Shan He Tom Pierce.
Advances in Support of the CMAQ Bidirectional Science Option for the Estimation of Ammonia Flux from Agricultural cropland Ellen Cooter U.S. EPA, National.
Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.
Development and Preliminary Results of Image Processing Tools for Meteorology and Air Quality Modeling Limei Ran Center for Environmental Modeling for.
Integrated projections of U.S. air quality benefits from avoided climate change Fernando Garcia Menendez Rebecca K. Saari, Erwan Monier, Noelle E. Selin.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division S.T. Rao Director, NERL/AMAD U.S.
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.
. s Yuqiang Zhang 1, J. Jason West 1, Meridith M. Fry 1, Raquel A. Silva 1, Steven J. Smith 2, Vaishali Naik 4, Zachariah Adelman 1, Susan C. Anenberg.
Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.
Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.
October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Effects of Liquid Water on Secondary Inorganic Aerosol in Central California During a Winter Episode 1 Planning.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.
Overview of the Climate Impact on Regional Air Quality (CIRAQ) Project Ellen J. Cooter *, Alice Gilliland *, William Benjey *, Robert Gilliam * and Jenise.
Use of space-based tropospheric NO 2 observations in regional air quality modeling Robert W. Pinder 1, Sergey L. Napelenok 1, Alice B. Gilliland 1, Randall.
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.
October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Impacts of Ethanol Fuel on PM Concentrations in Northern California during a Winter Episode 1 Planning and Technical.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Evaluating temporal and spatial O 3 and PM 2.5 patterns simulated during an annual CMAQ application over the continental U.S. Evaluating temporal and spatial.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
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.
Development and Initial Applications
Jonathan Pleim NOAA/ARL* RTP, NC A NEW COMBINED LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL PBL MODEL FOR METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY MODELING * In Partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division Donna Schwede NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric.
Using Secondary Data to Evaluate Diverse Groups of Chemical and Nonchemical Stressors in Cumulative Risk Assessment Amanda M. Evans 1 Glenn E. Rice 2,
Limei Ran 1, Ellen Cooter 2, Verel Benson 3, Dongmei Yang 1, Robert Gilliam 2, Adel Hanna 1, William Benjey 2 1 Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy.
Using Linked Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050 Chris Nolte, Alice Gilliland Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division,
Advances in Support of the CMAQ Bidirectional Science Option for the Estimation of Ammonia Flux from Agricultural cropland Ellen Cooter U.S. EPA, National.
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.
PREMAQ: A New Pre-Processor to CMAQ for Air Quality Forecasting Tanya L. Otte*, George Pouliot*, and Jonathan E. Pleim* Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S.
Ellen Cooter1, Limei Ran1, Verel Benson2, Dongmei Yang3,
15th Annual CMAS Conference
Land Use in Regional Climate Modeling
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
Tanya L. Spero1, Megan S. Mallard1, Stephany M
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
17th Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC: October 22-24, 2018
Impact of GOES Enhanced WRF Fields on Air Quality Model Performance
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
MODELING AT NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE Sylvain Dupont and Jason Ching
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.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Presentation transcript:

Utilizing the Mosaic Approach to Estimate Deposition Velocities in the CMAQ Model JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, U.S. EPA-NOAA Research Triangle Park, NC 2007 Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC October 1st -3rd ,2007

Introduction Vd In the current CMAQ model Deposition velocity (Vd) is estimated from the grid-scale parameters The impact of the sub-grid scale land use is not well explored Vd Grid scale

In the proposed Mosaic approach Introduction-Cont. In the proposed Mosaic approach Characterize and quantify the contributions of the sub-grid scale land use to the Vd and fluxes within grid cell Improve the usefulness of CMAQ output in ecological assessments Facilitate future process-based simulation of bi-directional chemical exchange across water, soil and vegetation surfaces Vd Vdj Sub-grid scale

Deposition Velocity Estimate of Vd For a given chemical Assume PAR, Ta, and RHs = constant in each grid cell Vd is influenced by sub-grid land use (LU) and soil type. However, the soil type is not easy to separat from the LU

Mosaic Approach Apply the sub-grid scale parameters to estimate Vd Utilize USGS Land Use Classification Estimate u* and zoj base on the assumptions of (1) Uu*= Uju*j (Walcek, 1986) and (2) logarithmic wind profile Estimate LAIj from the meteorological model.

USGS Land Use Classification

Land Use Characteristics

Roughness Length and Friction Velocity UTC 20:00, July 27, 2001

Vd Comparison UTC 20:00, July 27, 2001

Vd Comparison-Cont. 10-day simulation: July 22~July 31, 2001

Impact of the Land Use Compositions on Vd Mixed Forest Decids. Broadlf. Water Body Crop/Wood Drylnd Crop. Past. Evergrn Needlf.

Summary (1) Conclusions The proposed mosaic approach can sufficiently estimate the contribution of sub-grid scale land use on the deposition velocity. In this case study, the deposition velocity of ozone derived from the mosaic approach departs roughly by 15% at most from the original MCIP model. The coverage of the water body in each grid cell strongly impacts the estimation of the mosaic approach.

Summary (2) Future Work Integrate the information of the sub-grid soil types and the sub-grid land use composition. Seasonality analysis Investigate the impact on the bi-directional fluxes.

Acknowledgements & Disclaimer The authors would like to thank the discussion and the input from Ellen Cooter, Jesse Bash, and Tanya Otte. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the National Exposure Research Laboratory administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Disclaimer: The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW13921548. This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality and Global Climate Programs. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.