A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Analysis of CMAQ Performance and Grid-to- grid Variability Over 12-km and 4-km Spacing Domains within the Houston airshed Daiwen Kang Computer Science.

Advertisements

Fong (Fantine) Ngan and DaeWon Byun IMAQS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Houston 7 th Annual CMAS Conference, October 6th, 2008.

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

An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,

An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.

Recent performance statistics for AMPS real-time forecasts Kevin W. Manning – National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2011 WRF Modeling Model Performance Evaluation University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.

Transitioning CMAQ for NWS Operational AQ Forecasting Jeff McQueen*, Pius Lee*, Marina Tsildulko*, G. DiMego*, B. Katz* R. Mathur,T. Otte, J. Pleim, J.

Tanya L. Otte and Robert C. Gilliam NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with U.S. EPA National Exposure Research.

2003 OZONE DATA SHARING PROJECT UPDATE Air Quality Advisory Committee September 23, 2003.

Regional Climate Modeling in the Source Region of Yellow River with complex topography using the RegCM3: Model validation Pinhong Hui, Jianping Tang School.

CMAS Conference, October 16 – 18, 2006 The work presented here was performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with partial.

Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, Urban vs. Rural and Other Comparisons Jerry Gorline and Jeff McQueen  Jerry Gorline, NWS/OST/MDL.

Five-year Progress in the Performance of Air Quality Forecast Models: Analysis on Categorical Statistics for the National Air Quality Forecast Capacity.

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

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.

O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.

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,

Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,

Meteorological Data Analysis Urban, Regional Modeling and Analysis Section Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

CMAS Conference, October 6 – 8, 2008 The work presented in this paper was performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with.

Adaptation and Application of the CMAQ Modeling System for Real-time Air Quality Forecasting During the Summer of 2004 R. Mathur, J. Pleim, T. Otte, K.

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.

Assimilating AIRNOW Ozone Observations into CMAQ Model to Improve Ozone Forecasts Tianfeng Chai 1, Rohit Mathur 2, David Wong 2, Daiwen Kang 1, Hsin-mu.

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 +,

Evaluation of several WRF/NMM- CMAQ vertical coupling configurations Pius Lee, Jeff McQueen, Marina Tsildulko, Geoff DiMego Sarah Lu and Bert Katz NOAA/NCEP.

Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.

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

Comparison of CMAQ Lightning NOx Schemes and Their Impacts Youhua Tang 1,2, Li Pan 1,2, Pius Lee 1, Jeffery T. McQueen 4, Jianping Huang 4,5, Daniel Tong.

Impact of Meteorological Inputs on Surface O 3 Prediction Jianping Huang 9 th CMAS Annual Conference Oct. 12, 2010, Chapel, NC.

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.

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.

1 Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological Model Yunhee Kim, Joshua S.

C. Hogrefe 1,2, W. Hao 2, E.E. Zalewsky 2, J.-Y. Ku 2, B. Lynn 3, C. Rosenzweig 4, M. Schultz 5, S. Rast 6, M. Newchurch 7, L. Wang 7, P.L. Kinney 8, and.

Effects of Emission Adjustments on Peak Ground-Level Ozone Concentration in Southeast Texas Jerry Lin, Thomas Ho, Hsing-wei Chu, Heng Yang, Santosh Chandru,

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,

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

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.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division October 21, 2009 Evaluation of CMAQ.

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.

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.

Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston.

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.

Operational and diagnostic evaluations of ozone forecasts by the Eta-CMAQ model suite during the 2002 new England air quality study (NEAQS) Shaocai Yu.

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

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.

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 $,

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.

Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National.

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.

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.

A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ

16th Annual CMAS Conference

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

OZONE Monitoring Network

SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH

Pius Lee, Youhua Tang, Jeff McQueen, Ho-Chun Huang,

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

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

JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim

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

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

Presentation transcript:

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004

Contributors Brian Eder Daiwen Kang Tanya Otte Hsiu-mu Lin Jon Pleim Shaocai Yu George Pouliot STC Ken Schere Jeff Young ASMD ARL, NOAA All: On assignment to NERL, 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 DW Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.

Forecast Configuration - Eta Meteorology - CBIV Mechanism - SMOKE Emissions (Offline) - 12 km grid resolution - 22 Vertical Layers - 48 Hr. Forecast (12Z Init.) Simulation Period - 1 May – 30 September June – 30 September 2004 (presented here) Domain Models-3 CMAQ Lambert Conformal Projection

This performance evaluation used: Hourly O 3 (ppb) from EPA’s AIRNOW network: - over 600 stations (mostly urban) - for a four month period (J, J, A, S) A suite of statistical metrics for: - discrete forecasts (MB, NMB, RMSE, NME) - categorical forecasts (A, B, POD, FAR, CSI) of hourly, max. 1-hr and max. 8-hr O 3 (presented here).

Discrete Forecast / Evaluation [Observed] versus [Forecast] Statistics - Summary - Biases MB NMB - Errors

Category Forecast / Evaluation Observed Exceedances, Non-Exceedances versus versus Forecast Exceedances, Non-Exceedances Forecast Exceedances, Non-Exceedances ab cd Forecast Exceedance No Yes Observed Exceedance a b c d

Monthly summaries: -June, July, August, September -Both Discrete and Categorical evaluation Daily summaries: -August 4 -12, Discrete evaluation -Examine performance over a full synoptic cycle -Illustrating both good and poor model performance Forecast / Evaluation

Meteorological Conditions for the Summer (J, J, A) 2004

Meteorological Conditions for the Summer (J, J, A) 2004 Temperature Precipitation

Monthly Summaries

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) ABPODFARCSIa=40b= c=18274d=56 a b c d June Summary

Correlation Mean Bias (ppb) NMB (%) NME (%) June Summary

June Summary Bias Error

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) ABPODFARCSIa=272b= c=18258d=93 July Summary

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) ABPODFARCSIa=232b= c=19000d=29 August Summary

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) ABPODFARCSIa=71b= c=18018d=15 September Summary

Daily Summaries

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 4 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 44.1 (58.5) 55.8 (62.1) 0.41 (0.27) 11.7 (3.5) 26.5 (6.0) 17.9 (13.1) 32.8 (17.3) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 3 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 4 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance is poorer along the cold front where cloud cover and heavy rain dominate

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 5 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 43.8 (58.2) 51.6 (63.0) 0.73 (0.66) 7.8 (4.9) 17.9 (8.4) 12.3 (10.4) 22.3 (14.5) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 4 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 5 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance is still poor along the cold front where cloud cover and heavy rain dominate

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 6 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 37.8 (52.6) 44.3 (55.3) 0.82 (0.67) 6.4 (2.6) 17.0 (5.0) 8.7 (6.9) 18.9 (10.1) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 5 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 6 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance is very good throughout the domain, except for sections of New England and southeast Ontario, where cloud cover is greatest.

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 7 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 41.2 (50.1) 45.9 (50.7) 0.79 (0.71) 4.7 (0.6) 11.5 (1.3) 8.6 (5.3) 16.2 (8.2) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 6 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 7 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance is again very good, except for sections of New England, southeast Ontario and Wisconsin, where cloud cover is greatest.

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 8 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 48.7 (54.8) 52.0 (55.2) 0.75 (0.62) 3.3 (0.4) 6.8 (0.7) 9.6 (6.6) 14.5 (9.5) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 7 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 8 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model continues to perform well as the cP airmass undergoes modification. Warmer temperatures allow for higher ozone values (mean observed up to 48.7). New England still has more cloud cover.

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 9 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 52.9 (57.1) 55.2 () (0.61) 2.3 (1.0) 4.4 (1.8) 8.0 (7.4) 11.6 (9.8) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 8 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 9 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Good model performance continues, as the cP airmass continues to warm. Highest ozone values (52.9) observed on this day. Cloud cover in New England dissipates resulting in better model performance there.

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 10 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 49.4 (58.4) 57.7 (60.8) 0.69 (0.59) 8.6 (2.4) 17.4 (4.2) 15.6 (9.4) 24.5 (12.6) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 9 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 10 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance degrades somewhat as cloud cover and precipitation increases over the domain, most notably with a cold front approaching from the Great Lakes and a low forming over south

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 11 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 42.2 (51.8) 54.9 (60.7) 0.71 (0.33) 12.7 (9.0) 30.2 (17.3) 15.7 (12.7) 31.7 (19.3) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 10 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 11 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance continues to suffer over the Great Lakes area as cloud cover, precipitation and very cool temperatures dominate this region.

Synoptic Scale Meteorology 12 August :15

Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) 32.5 (44.9) 51.1 (56.6) 0.38 (0.18) 18.6 (11.7) 57.4 (26.1) 21.0 (14.1) 58.0 (28.1) 48 Hour Max. 8-Hour Ozone Forecast Init: 11 Aug (12 Z) Valid: 12 Aug TP (04 Z to 03 Z) Model performance at its worst as extensive cloud cover, precipitation and very cool temperatures dominate the entire domain.

Monthly Summary Obs Mean Model Mean r MB (ppb) NMB (%) RMSE (ppb) NME (%) June July August September Summary Model performed reasonably well over the four month period, despite anomalously cool and wet conditions. Performance was closely tied to meteorology: M very good performance when skies were generally clear and void of precipitation, M poorer when cloud cover and precipitation occurred.