2007 Group Meeting Global Climate and Air Pollution (GCAP) at Harvard University Nicky Lam and Joshua Fu University of Tennessee October 12, 2007.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Use of Lidar Backscatter to Determine the PBL Heights in New York City, NY Jia-Yeong Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Gopal Sistla New York State Department of Environmental.

Advertisements

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

Overview of GCAP Project October 12, 2007 Harvard University PI: Jacob Co-Is: Byun, Fu, Mickley, Seinfeld, Streets, Rind Also: Wu, Liao, Lam, Li, Yoshitomi,

GEOS-Chem Simulations for CMAQ Initial and Boundary Conditions 1 Yun-Fat Lam, 1 Joshua S. Fu, 2 Daniel J. Jacob, 3 Carey Jang and 3 Pat Dolwick.

A statistical method for calculating the impact of climate change on future air quality over the Northeast United States. Collaborators: Cynthia Lin, Katharine.

Development of Alternative Methods For Estimating Dry Deposition Velocity In CMAQ.

Dynamical Downscaling of CCSM Using WRF Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yun-Fat Lam 1, John Drake 1, Kate Evans 2 1 University of Tennessee, USA 2 Oak Ridge.

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

Chemistry-climate interactions: a new direction for GEOS-CHEM GEOS-CHEM research to date GCAP project Current project: drive GEOS-CHEM into.

Ozone and Aerosols in US and East Asia between 2001 and 2002 Yun-Fat Lam 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Zuopan Li 1, Carey Jang 2, Rokjin Park 3 and Daniel J. Jacob.

OCTOBER 2003 PROGRESS REPORT ICAP Phase 2 Harvard University Daniel J. Jacob (P.I.), Rokjin J. Park, Noelle Eckley, and Loretta J. Mickley November 7,

Regional Air Quality Modeling: Long Range Global Change Simulations.

Effects of climate change on future wildfire and its impact on regional air quality Hyun Cheol Kim, Dae-Gyun Lee, and Daewon Byun 1 Institute for Multidimensional.

GLOBAL CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION (GCAP): Daniel J. Jacob (P.I.) and Loretta J. Mickley, Harvard John H. Seinfeld, Caltech David Rind, NASA/GISS Joshua Fu,

Muntaseer Billah, Satoru Chatani and Kengo Sudo Department of Earth and Environmental Science Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University,

BRAVO Back-Trajectory Analyses Why Consider ATAD? History of use at Big Bend - How Good is our past? History of comparison to other wind fields. ATAD vs.

Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang Gao University of Tennessee Daniel Jacob, Loretta Mickley and Shiliang Wu Harvard University Oct 20, 2009 The effects.

The Projection of Future Air Quality for Regional scale considering Climate Change Scenarios Nankyoung Moon 1, Sung-You Hong 2, Soontae Kim 3, Jung-Hun.

National/Regional Air Quality Modeling Assessment Over China and Taiwan Using Models-3/CMAQ Modeling System Joshua S. Fu 1, Carey Jang 2, David Streets.

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

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

Dynamical Downscaling Developing a Model Framework for WRF for Future GCM Downscaling Jared H. Bowden Tanya L. Otte June 25, th Annual Meteorological.

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

INTERACTIONS OF AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE Daniel J. Jacob How do air pollutants contribute to climate change? How will climate change affect air.

The Impact of Biogenic VOC Emissions on Tropospheric Ozone Formation in the Mid-Atlantic Region Michelle L. Bell Yale University Hugh Ellis Johns Hopkins.

OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results: Continued Diagnostics and PA Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation.

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.

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

Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence MCIP2AERMOD: A Prototype Tool for Preparing.

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

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

Techniques for Evaluating Wildfire Smoke Impact on Ozone for Possible Exceptional Events Daniel Alrick 1, Clinton MacDonald 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, Charles.

OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation 2 T. W. Tesche Dennis.

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

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

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

Overview of the Climate Impact on Regional Air Quality (CIRAQ) Project Ellen J. Cooter *, Alice Gilliland *, William Benjey *, Robert Gilliam * and Jenise.

Climate Change and Ozone Air Quality: Applications of a Coupled GCM/MM5/CMAQ Modeling System C. Hogrefe 1, J. Biswas 1, K. Civerolo 2, J.-Y. Ku 2, B. Lynn.

An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.

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.

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

Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.

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

Diagnosing the sensitivity of O 3 air quality to climate change over the United States Moeko Yoshitomi Daniel J. Jacob, Loretta.

Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.

Importance of chemistry-climate interactions in projections of future air quality Loretta J. Mickley Lu Shen, Daniel H. Cusworth, Xu Yue Earth system models.

Climate Impacts on Air Quality Response to Controls: Not Such an Uncertain Future K.J. Liao, E. Tagaris, K. Manomaiphiboon, A. G. Russell, School of Civil.

Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditions of central Europe Jan Karlický, Tomáš Halenka, Michal Belda, (Charles University.

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

1 RAQMS-CMAQ Atmospheric Chemistry Model Data for the TexAQS-II Period : Focus on BCs impacts on air quality simulations Daewon Byun 1, Daegyun Lee 1,

Module 6 MM5: Overview William J. Gutowski, Jr. Iowa State University.

Response of fine particles to the reduction of precursor emissions in Yangtze River Delta (YRD), China Juan Li 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yang Gao 1, Yun-Fat Lam.

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

GCAP (Global Climate and Air Pollution): One of six projects funded by EPA-STAR to study effect of climate change on air quality. Collaborators: Harvard.

Pearl River Delta (PRD) The distribution of city clusters in China Analysis and numerical simulation on a server Fan Qi 1,Yu Wei 1, Luo Xuyu 1, (1. Department.

3 YEARS’ OPERATION OF AIR QUALITY FORECAST SYSTEM Hyun Cheol Kim, Daewon Byun, DaeGyun Lee, Soontae Kim, and Fong Ngan University of Houston The Institute.

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.

Fine Scale Modeling of Ozone Exposure Estimates using a Source Sensitivity Approach Cesunica E. Ivey, Lucas Henneman, Cong Liu, Yongtao T. Hu, Armistead.

Using Linked Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050 Chris Nolte, Alice Gilliland Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division,

Off-line Air Quality Modeling Paradigms:

Global Influences on Local Pollution

9th Annual Meteorological Users’ Meeting

CMAQ Programs and Options

C. Nolte, T. Spero, P. Dolwick, B. Henderson, R. Pinder

Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform

J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

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

Presentation transcript:

2007 Group Meeting Global Climate and Air Pollution (GCAP) at Harvard University Nicky Lam and Joshua Fu University of Tennessee October 12, 2007

GCAP Update UT Team 1.Find best MM5 schemes for GISS data Sensitivity analysis Best scenario for whole domain Best scenario for Northeastern States, Southeastern States, Central States, & West States 2.Preliminary run using Barry Lynn suggested base on the Best MM5 schemes in Northeastern States and other schemes combinations 3.CMAQ runs for 2001 and 2050

Highlighted scenario are the preliminary runs GISS/MM5 Downscale Modeling

Case 24 ( Kain-Fritsch 2, Eta, Reisner 2, RRTM) has closer temperature compared to others Similar wind speed were found on all cases Similar wind direction were found on all cases

Noted: Noah LSM is not available due to lack of soil layers May need to discuss with Loretta to reprocessing the output from GEOS-Chem

Case 24 is used in all preliminary simulation.Case 24 is used in all preliminary simulation. This setting was suggested by Barry Lynn claimed to be the best scenario for Northeastern StatesThis setting was suggested by Barry Lynn claimed to be the best scenario for Northeastern States MM5 Scheme Evaluation

MM5 Setting LAMBERT CONFORMAL NO COARSE DOMAIN EXPANSION TRUE LATITUDE 1 (degree) => 33 degrees TRUE LATITUDE 2 (degree) => 45 degrees Time increment between analysis times (s)=> 3 hrs data Top pressure used in analysis, model lid (Pa) => No FDDA Number of half-sigma layers => 34 layers Simulation duration for each run => 6 days with 12 hrs spinoff Simulation time step => 90 seconds

MM5 Sigma Level => from INTERPF Noted: MCIP extracts the highlighted sigma level for CMAQ

CMAQ Modeling

Current Case Study 2001 meteorology with 2001 emission 2050 meteorology with 2001 emission –Find the effect that contributed from the change of GISS meteorology Time period: June 1 to October 1 (Ozone season)

CMAQ 14 layers (from the previous sigma levels) ICON and BCON from GEOS-Chem from 3 hrs to one hour average GISS meteorological Inputs Input emission is compatible with 2001 EPA emission

MM5 Comparison between GISS_2001, GISS_2050 and NCEP_2001(FDDA)

Temperature Average

Temperature Maximum

PBL Average

Air Density Average

Wind Speed Average

Pressure Average

Precipitation Average

Total Cloud Fraction Average

Dry Dep. Velocity Average

Conv. Velocity Scale Average

CMAQ comparison 2001 GISS data 2050 GISS data

O 3 concentration vs. Temperature Relationship

Maximum O 3 At the same location

Avg NO x & Avg VOCs More VOCs, but less O 3, Main effect => T NO x limited Area, no big diff.

PM 2.5 & DCV 7.2 m 391 m

Visual Range Parameters: Deciview (dv) : dV = 10 ln (b / 0.01), b [km -1 ] : extinction coeff. Koschmieder Visual Range : Vr = 3.91 / b [km] dV Vr [km]  km -1 ]

SO 2 & Total Sulfur Dep. very minimal Effect

Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001) Average Temp. & Average O 3 Conc.

Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001) Max Temp. & Max O 3 Conc.