Classificatory performance evaluation of air quality forecasting in Georgia Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang 2 and Armistead G. Russell.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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

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

Georgia Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference: Improved Air Quality Modeling for Predicting the Impacts of Controlled Forest.

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.

U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.

Quantifying CMAQ Simulation Uncertainties of Particulate Matter in the Presence of Uncertain Emissions Rates Wenxian Zhang, Marcus Trail, Alexandra Tsimpidi,

Modeled Trends in Impacts of Landing and Takeoff Aircraft Emissions on Surface Air-Quality in U.S for 2005, 2010 and 2018 Lakshmi Pradeepa Vennam 1, Saravanan.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA

Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.

1 Modelling Activities at LAC (PSI) in Switzerland Ş. Andreani-Aksoyo ğ lu, J. Keller, I. Barmpadimos, D. Oderbolz, A.S.H. Prévôt Laboratory of Atmospheric.

ACCENT/GLOREAM 2006, October, Paris Photo-oxidants formation and transport over Europe during the heat wave period in July 2006 Joanna Struzewska.

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.

SHENAIR University of Virginia Research Projects Status Report August 7, 2006 Robert Davis, Stephen Gawtry, David Knight, David Hondula, Temple Lee, Luke.

Operational Air Quality and Source Contribution Forecasting in Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division, Applied Modeling Research Branch October 8, 2008.

Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.

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

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.

Simulating prescribed fire impacts for air quality management Georgia Institute of Technology M. Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Fernando Garcia-Menendez, Aika.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.

Air Mass Characterization of Air Quality and Health Impacts under Current and Future Climate Scenarios Adel Hanna 1, Aijun Xiu 1, Karin Yeatts 1, Richard.

PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.

EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.

Modeling biomass burnings by coupling a sub-grid scale plume model with Adaptive Grid CMAQ Aika Yano Fernando Garcia-Menendez Yongtao Hu M. Talat Odman.

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.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Formation and Emission Control Responses using High-order Sensitivities Di Tian,

Supermodel, Supermodel, Can I Breathe Tomorrow? Talat Odman* and Yongtao Hu Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil & Environmental Engineering.

Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.

CRAZ Ozone Analysis Xin Qiu, Ph.D., ACM, EP May 3 rd, 2011.

Source-Specific Forecasting of Air Quality Impacts with Dynamic Emissions Updating & Source Impact Reanalysis Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu.

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.

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

CMAQ APPLICATION TO OZONE POLLUTION IN THE PEARL RIVER DELTA OF CHINA Wei Zhou 1,2,Yuanghang Zhang 1,Xuesong Wang 1,Daniel Cohan 2 1.College of Environmental.

Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.

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

Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data & Estimating fire emissions: satellite.

Georgia Institute of Technology Assessing the Impacts of Hartsfield- Jackson Airport on PM and Ozone in Atlanta Area Alper Unal, Talat Odman and Ted Russell.

Statewide Protocol: Regional Application August 27, 2003 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Luis F. Woodhouse.

William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.

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.

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.

1 Aika Yano, Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Armistead Russell Georgia Institute of Technology October 15, th annual CMAS conference.

Georgia Institute of Technology Comprehensive evaluation on air quality forecasting ability of Hi-Res in southeastern United States Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat.

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,

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.

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.

Georgia Institute of Technology SAMI Aerosol Modeling: Performance Evaluation & Future Year Simulations Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology SAMI.

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.

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.

Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao.

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

Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.

Sensitivity of PM 2.5 Species to Emissions in the Southeast Sun-Kyoung Park and Armistead G. Russell Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of PM.

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

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

Georgia Institute of Technology Air Quality Impacts from Airport Related Emissions: Atlanta Case Study M. Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology School.

15th Annual CMAS Conference

Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.

SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.

2017 Annual CMAS conference, October 24, 2017

Forecasting the Impacts of Wildland Fires

2017 Projections and Interstate Transport of Ozone in Southeastern US Talat Odman & Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD 16th Annual.

Analysis of Vertical Fire Emissions Distribution in CMAQ

Sensitivity Analysis of Ozone in the Southeast

Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, M. Talat Odman and Armistead G. Russell

Presentation transcript:

Classificatory performance evaluation of air quality forecasting in Georgia Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang 2 and Armistead G. Russell 1 1 School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 2 Brook Byers Institute of Sustainable Systems Georgia Institute of Technology 9 th Annual CMAS Conference, October 12 th, 2010

Overview  The Hi-Res air quality forecasting system  O 3 and PM 2.5 performance for metro Atlanta  New SOA module and its impact on PM 2.5 performance  Classificatory performance evaluation: linking forecast performance to weather types and emissions conditions

Georgia Institute of Technology Hi-Res: forecasting ozone and PM 2.5 at 4-km resolution for metro areas in Georgia

Georgia Institute of Technology Hi-Res Forecast Products  “Single Value” Report: tomorrow’s AQI, ozone and PM 2.5 by metro area in Georgia  Air Quality Forecasts: AQI, ozone and PM 2.5, 48-hrs spatial plots and station profiles  Meteorological Forecasts: precipitation, temperature and winds, 48-hrs spatial plots and station profiles  Performance Evaluation: time series comparison and scatter plots for the previous day Snapshots from Hi-Res homepage:

Evolution of Hi-Res during  Updated to latest release of WRF each year before the ozone season. WRF 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2  CMAQ is typically one version behind. CMAQ 4.6 with Georgia Tech extensions  Projected NEI to current year in the very beginning of each year.  Updated forecast products website each year before ozone season.  Switched from single-cycle forecasting to two-cycles in  Enlarged 4-km domain to cover the entire state of Georgia in  Introduced Georgia Tech’s new SOA module in 2009.

Ambient Monitoring Sites for Performance Evaluation

Performance Metrics False AlarmsHits Correct Nonevents Missed Exceedences Forecast Observation NAAQS

Georgia Institute of Technology Overall Performance (Ozone Season): Atlanta Metro Ozone PM 2.5 MNB16% MNE23% MNB-20% MNE34%

Ozone Performance

Georgia Institute of Technology Forecast vs. Observed O MNB14% MNE18% MNB8.5% MNE19% MNB17% MNE23% MNB28% MNE30%

2009 O 3 Performance: Hi-Res vs. GA EPD’s Our 4-km Forecast EPD Ensemble Forecast MNB28% MNE30% MNB13% MNE21% Economic down turn?

2010 O 3 Performance: Hi-Res vs. GA EPD’s Our 4-km Forecast EPD Ensemble Forecast MNB14% MNE18% MNB9% MNE17% Economic recovery?

PM 2.5 Performance

Summer

Georgia Institute of Technology Forecast vs. Observed PM MNB-37% MNE44% MNB-38% MNE42% MNB8% MNE25% MNB4% MNE21%

2009 PM 2.5 Performance: 4-km vs. GA EPD’s Our 4-km ForecastEPD Ensemble Forecast MNB8% MNE25% MNB11% MNE24% Economic down turn? New SOA module?

2010 PM 2.5 Performance: 4-km vs. GA EPD’s Our 4-km ForecastEPD Ensemble Forecast MNB4% MNE21% MNB14% MNE30% New SOA module?

New SOA Module (Baek, J., Georgia Tech, 2009) SOA partitioned from anthropogenic VOCs’ oxidations (8 SVOCs) From monoterpenes (2 SVOCs) From isoprene (2 SVOCs added) From sesquiterpenes (1 SVOC added, gas phase oxidation reactions added for α-caryphyllene, β-humulene, and other sesquiterpenes) Aging of all semi-volatile organic carbons (SVOCs) added Included processes: SOA species in CMAQ: AORGAJ and AORGAI AORGBJ and AORGBI AORGBISJ and AORGBISI AORGBSQJ and AORGBSQI AORGAGJ and AORGAGI HSVOC LSVOC Aerosol Aging process: +OH,+O3

Forecast vs. Observed OC at South DeKalb 2009 Ozone Season May-September OC PM 2.5

Met. Performance

Georgia Institute of Technology Overall Performance (Ozone Season): Atlanta Metro Temperature Humidity MB-0.46K ME1.61K MB-0.67g/kg ME1.19g/kg

Georgia Institute of Technology Forecast vs. Observed Temperature MB-1.16K ME1.90K MB-0.80K ME1.94K MB0.37K ME1.47K MB-0.19K ME1.15K

Georgia Institute of Technology Forecast vs. Observed Humidity MB-0.59g/kg ME1.22g/kg MB-0.89g/kg ME1.33g/kg MB-0.36g/kg ME0.96g/kg MB-0.73g/kg ME1.03g/kg

Classificatory Performance Evaluation during Hu, Y., et al. 2010, "Using synoptic classification to evaluate an operational air quality forecasting system in Atlanta," Atmos. Pol. Res., 1,

Spatial Synoptic Classification (Sheridan 2002, : Atlanta Calendar (ozone season) Weather Types  DP (dry polar): lowest in temp, clear and dry.  DM (dry moderate): air is mild and dry.  DT (dry tropical): hottest and driest.  MP (moist polar): cloudy, humid and cool.  MM (moist moderate): warmer and more humid.  MT (moist tropical): warm and very humid.  TR (transitional): one type yields to another, large shifts in P,Td,V. SSCDPDMDTMPMMMTTRMISSINGTOTAL Total

Forecasting error versus observation for spatial synoptic classifications SSC DMDTMMMTTR O3O3 MO (ppb) Number of days > 75 ppb MNE %18%39%27%14% MNE %8%48%26%19% PM 2.5 MO (μg m -3 ) Number of days > 35 μg m MNE %44%47%38%42% MNE %19%30%25%34% TemperatureMO (K) ME (K) HumidityMO (g kg -1 ) ME (g kg -1 ) Wind speedMO (m s -1 ) ME (m s -1 ) *Statistics are for summers where not specified.

Georgia Institute of Technology Observations Grouped by Weather Type Ozone PM 2.5

8-hr O 3 Performance Grouped by Weather Type

24-hr PM 2.5 Performance by Weather Type

GA EPD forecasting Performance by Weather Type Ozone PM 2.5

Linking Performance to Emissions Conditions Emissions Conditions Classification: Special weekdays (Monday and Friday) Typical weekdays Weekends/holidays Ozone PM 2.5

Georgia Institute of Technology Summary ozone forecasts are good. –Overall bias is +16% and error is 23% PM 2.5 forecasts are not very accurate. –May-September bias is -37% and error is 43% The new SOA module improved 2009 and 2010 PM 2.5 performances –May-September bias is 8% and error is 25% for 2009 –May-September bias is 4% and error is 21% for temperature and humidity performances are good. Better ozone performance and, during , better PM 2.5 performance are associated with dry weather types. Forecast performance is worse on weekend/holidays

Acknowledgements We thank Georgia EPD for funding the Hi-Res forecasts, Our former group member Dr. Jaemeen Baek for the new SOA module, and Dr. Carlos Cardelino of Georgia Tech for team forecasts.

Georgia Institute of Technology Forecast vs. Observed 2006 O3 Humidity Temperature PM 2.5 MNB11% MNE29% MNB-38% MNE43% MB0.50K ME1.57K MB-0.74g/kg ME1.39g/kg

Winter

Forecasted vs. Observed PM