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

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

Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of CMAQ with FAQS Episode of August 11 th -20 th, 2000 Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Maudood Khan and Armistead.
COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
Working together for clean air Puget Sound Area Ozone Modeling NW AIRQUEST December 4, 2006 Washington State University Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Washington.
Talat Odman and Yongtao Hu, Georgia Tech Zac Adelman, Mohammad Omary and Uma Shankar, UNC James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim, Georgia DNR.
Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
Using Air Quality Models for Emissions Management Decisions
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.
Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,
Development, implementation, and application of an improved model performance evaluation and diagnostics approach Byeong-Uk Kim *, William Vizuete, and.
EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.
The Impact of Biogenic VOC Emissions on Tropospheric Ozone Formation in the Mid-Atlantic Region Michelle L. Bell Yale University Hugh Ellis Johns Hopkins.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International.
Air Quality Impacts from a Potential Shale Gas Emissions Scenario - Photochemical Modeling of Ozone Concentrations in Central North Carolina Presented.
1 Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results April 27, 2009 MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Formation and Emission Control Responses using High-order Sensitivities Di Tian,
Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.
10/28/2014 Xiangshang Li, Yunsoo Choi, Beata Czader Earth and Atmospheric Sciences University of Houston The impact of the observational meteorological.
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.
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.
OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation 2 T. W. Tesche Dennis.
Impacts of MOVES2014 On-Road Mobile Emissions on Air Quality Simulations of the Western U.S. Z. Adelman, M. Omary, D. Yang UNC – Institute for the Environment.
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.
Impact of high resolution modeling on ozone predictions in the Cascadia region Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of.
Template Simulation of Wintertime High Ozone Concentrations in Southwestern Wyoming Ralph E. Morris, Susan Kemball-Cook, Bonyoung Koo, Till Stoeckenius.
OThree Chemistry Modeling of the Sept ’00 CCOS Ozone Episode: Diagnostic Experiments--Round 3 Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
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.
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.
Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.
The Impact of Short-term Climate Variations on Predicted Surface Ozone Concentrations in the Eastern US 2020 and beyond Shao-Hang Chu and W.M. Cox US Environmental.
1. How is model predicted O3 sensitive to day type emission variability and morning Planetary Boundary Layer rise? Hypothesis 2.
GOING FROM 12-KM TO 250-M RESOLUTION Josephine Bates 1, Audrey Flak 2, Howard Chang 2, Heather Holmes 3, David Lavoue 1, Mitchel Klein 2, Matthew Strickland.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
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.
WRAP Stationary Sources Joint Forum Meeting August 16, 2006 The CMAQ Visibility Model Applied To Rural Ozone In The Intermountain West Patrick Barickman.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Impacts of Meteorological Variations on RRFs (Relative Response Factors) in the Demonstration of Attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality for 8-hr.
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.
Dynamic Model Performance Evaluation Using Weekday-Weekend and Retrospective Analyses Air Quality Division Jim Smith and Mark Estes Texas Commission on.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.
Accuracy of multi-parameter response surfaces generated from sensitivity coefficients Daniel Cohan and Antara Digar CMAS Conference 2009 October 19, 2009.
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.
VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling
Dynamic Evaluation of CMAQ-Modeled Ozone Response to Emission Changes in The South coast air Basin Prakash Karamchandani1, Ralph Morris1, Andrew Wentland1,
Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.
A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ
Byeong-Uk Kim and Jim Boylan Planning and Support Program
C. Nolte, T. Spero, P. Dolwick, B. Henderson, R. Pinder
2017 Projections and Interstate Transport of Ozone in Southeastern US Talat Odman & Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD 16th Annual.
Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
Impact of NOx Emissions in Georgia on Annual PM2.5
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 Estimated 8-hr Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations Kirk Baker Donna Kenski Lake Michigan.
Presentation transcript:

Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur, and James Boylan 6 th Annual CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, NC October 2, 2007

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Objective Investigate the effects of modeling choices on Relative Response Factors (RRFs) in Atlanta, GA –Horizontal grid resolution: 4 km and 12 km –Chemical Transport Model: CMAQ and CAMx

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Approach Exercising typical SIP modeling –Model Performance Evaluation (MPE) Measures and methods following the EPA’s guidance document (EPA, 2007) –Modeled Attainment Test Relative Response Factors Additional analyses –MPE with graphical measures Partial implementation of PROMPT (Kim and Jeffries, 2006) –Investigation of day-by-day and site-by-site variation of model predictions

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Modeled Attainment Test Future Attainment Status is determined by Future Design Value (DVf) –DVf should be less than 0.85 ppm. DVf = RRF x DVb Where, DVb is Baseline Design Value and RRF is Relative Response Factor defined as

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Status in GA

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Modeling System Setup Base case modeling period –May 21, 2002 ~ Sep 13, 2002 UTC (3 spin- up days ) MM5 (v 3.x) –Pleim-Xiu model for Land-Surface interaction –Asymmetric Convective Mixing SMOKE (v 2.x) –VISTAS Base G version 2 inventory CMAQ and CAMx –Inputs made to be close to each model for a same grid configuration. Georgia

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 12 km 4 km 7x7 array for 4-km runs

Georgia Environmental Protection Division MPE with statistical metrics

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Time series

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Time series

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Time series O3O3 O3O3 Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Time series NO 2 ETH Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Time series O3O3 O3O3 Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Georgia Environmental Protection Division NO 2 ETH Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Georgia Environmental Protection Division CAMx CAMx-CMAQ Spatial distribution (12km) Daily Max 8-hr O ppb

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Relative Response Factors Two possible methods to calculate RRFs Max value in “nearby” grid cell arrays Value at each monitoring site grid cell Spatially averaged RRFs vary from to by modeling choices If DV b = 100 ppb, difference in RRF will result in 0.1 ppb in DV f. RRFs from max O 3 nearby grid cell arrays

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Conclusion (1) Reasonable performance with respect to statistical metrics by all four models, CMAQ and CAMx with 4-km and 12-km grids –4-km emissions had 11% lower NOx in non-attainment areas –4-km MM5 runs showed poor nighttime performance. Higher biases during nighttime by CMAQ and during daytime by CAMx –Gross overestimation of ozone by CAMx for several days Lower biases from 4-km simulations –Probably due to emission discrepancies in 4-km inputs compared with 12-km emissions. No significant daytime NOx biases

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Conclusion (2) Stable or insensitive RRFs –Due to higher absolute concentrations predicted by CAMx, CAMx might show quite lower RRFs than CMAQ. –Max-Value based RRFs fell within ~ for all simulations. Effect of RRF calculation methods –Despite of noticeable differences between 4-km and 12-km modeling inputs, Max-Value based RRFs does not reflect this fact significantly. –Cell-Value based RRF distinguished grid configuration differences. –For all 11 monitoring sites, maximum RRF difference due to model choices were and by Max-Value based and Cell-Value based RRF calculation.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Future Work Process Analysis to explain large variation of predicted ozone concentrations with similar modeling inputs Detail study on the relationship between model performance including day-by-day and site-by-site meteorological model performance and RRFs

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Acknowledgement ENVIRON International Corporation –Ralph Morris for CMAQ-to-CAMx utilities

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Byeong-Uk Kim, Ph.D. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA Contact Information