V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October.

Slides:



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

VISTAS Modeling Overview May 25, 2004 Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtns. National Park.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Revised CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation December.
G. Pirovano – CESIRICERCA, Italy Comparison and validation of long term simulation of PM10 over 7 European cities in the frame of Citydelta project Bedogni.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Latest CAMx 2018 Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team ENVIRON International Corporation Alpine.
CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
Impact of chemistry scheme complexity on UK air quality modelling Met Office FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: Fax:
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Meteorological Modeling Presentation to the SWCAA By ENVIRON International Corporation Alpine Geophysics, LLC.
Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
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.
Lessons Learned: One-Atmosphere Photochemical Modeling in Southeastern U.S. Presentation from Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative to Meeting of Regional.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International.
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.
WRAP CAMx-PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results Implementation Workgroup Meeting August 29, 2006.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.
VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Revised CAMx 2004 Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
WRAP Modeling. WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON.
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.
PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.
VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.
OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation 2 T. W. Tesche Dennis.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt GRGAQS: Meteorological Modeling Presentation to the SWCAA By ENVIRON International Corporation Alpine Geophysis, LLC.
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.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
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,
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.
Extending Size-Dependent Composition to the Modal Approach: A Case Study with Sea Salt Aerosol Uma Shankar and Rohit Mathur The University of North Carolina.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Revised/Final 2018 CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting Comparison of CMAQ and CAMx for an Annual Simulation over the South Coast Air Basin Jin Lu 1, Kathleen Fahey.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx 2004 PSAT Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Results & Status ENVIRON International Corporation and University of California, Riverside Dust Emission Joint.
Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,
1 Preliminary evaluation of the 2002 Base B1 CMAQ simulation: Temporal Analysis A more complete statistical evaluation, including diurnal variations, of.
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.
WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon and Dust – Sacramento, CA - May 23-24, 2006 WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Regional Modeling Center ENVIRON; UCR.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: New CAMx 2018 Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team ENVIRON International Corporation Alpine.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
7th Annual CMAS Conference
WRAP RMC Windblown Dust Emission Inventory Project Summary
PM2.5 Soil/Crustal Sensitivity Runs
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
CRGAQS: Latest CAMx 2018 Results R2
CRGAQS: CAMx PSAT Results
CRGAQS: Final 2018 CAMx Results
Presentation transcript:

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October 31, 2006 (boo!)

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Today’s Presentation Describe initial CAMx simulations –Model configuration –Performance evaluation metrics Performance for PM and light extinction Next Steps

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Model Configuration

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Model Configuration CAMx version 4.40 “Run 1” configuration –Maximize model speed Mechanism 4 – CF (static 2-mode PM chemistry) Bott advection solver No PiG OMP parallel processing on Linux quad-CPU –O’Brien Kv profile with 0.1 m 2 /s minimum –10-day model spin-up period 36-km grid only first 8 days 36/12-km grid last 2 days

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Model Configuration Episodes –August 10-22, 2004 Meteorology from MM5 Run 6, 36/12-km grids Flexi-nesting to the 4-km grid –November 4-18, 2004 Meteorology from MM5 Run 3, all grids Identified issues –Small temporal profile problem for fires –No on-road vehicle ammonia emissions in 4-km grid

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation Review spatial plots Review statistical performance –Species Individual PM species Total PM 2.5 and PM 10 Light scattering/extinction –Monitors IMPROVE, Gorge sites, FRM/STN Focus on sites along Gorge

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation –Metrics Fractional bias and gross error Regression and correlation –Need to develop time series of scattering and extinction

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation August 14, noonPristine

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE August NO3August SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE August NH4August OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE August ECAugust Primary Fine

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE August Primary CoarseAugust Total PM2.5

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE August Total PM10August Bext

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge August NO3August SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge August NH4August OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge August ECAugust Bscat

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – STN August NO3August SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge August NH4August OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge August ECAugust FRM PM2.5

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial August Modeling NO3, SO4, and NH4 were mostly under predicted –CAMx predictions higher at Gorge sites later in episode, but data were not available –More NH3 may increase NO3 and NH4 OC was mostly over predicted at IMPROVE and Gorge sites –Driven by fires

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial August Modeling EC was over predicted at IMPROVE but under predicted at Gorge sites –Reasons not clear – is Gorge EC backed out from aetholometer readings? Total PM2.5 looks good –Balance of component over and under predictions CM and PM10 were mostly under predicted at IMPROVE site

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial August Modeling Reconstructed scattering and extinction look good –Due to good PM2.5 predictions and dry conditions Contribution from under predicted hygroscopic salts just about balance contribution from over predicted carbon –CM doesn’t play a large role in visibility

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation November 10, noonPristine

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Performance Evaluation

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE November NO3November SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE November NH4November OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE November ECNovember Primary Fine

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE November Primary CoarseNovember Total PM2.5

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – IMPROVE November Total PM10November Bext

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge November NO3November SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge November NH4November OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge November ECNovember Bscat

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – STN November NO3November SO4

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge November NH4November OC

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Statistics – Gorge November ECNovember FRM PM2.5

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial November Modeling More NO3 and SO4 was observed and predicted than in the August episode. OC and PM2.5 were much lower over domain than in August since wildfire season was over

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial November Modeling SO4 performed well at IMPROVE sites, but was under predicted at the GORGE and STN sites NO3 performance was scattered NH4 was mostly under predicted OC and EC performance OK, but there were some over prediction outliers

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial November Modeling Primary fine and coarse (soil) was over predicted at all IMPROVE sites on all dates –Fine PM emissions may not reflect squelching effect of recent rains Reconstructed total PM2.5 and PM10 slightly over predicted –Driven by carbon and primary over predictions

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Initial November Modeling Extinction at IMPROVE sites was generally too low, while scattering at Gorge sites exhibits little skill –Under predicted salts are not contributing sufficient scattering –More NH3 might not help –Lack of modeled fog probably is not generating enough sulfates and nitrates

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt Moving Forward Sensitivity/Diagnostic runs –Revised emissions (fix identified problems) –Kv sensitivity CMAQ approach Alternative minimum Kz –Met sensitivity for August? (use Run 3) –Increase NH3 emissions –Reduce primary fine/coarse emissions in November