October 1-3, 2007 1 6th Annual CMAS Meeting Comparison of CMAQ and CAMx for an Annual Simulation over the South Coast Air Basin Jin Lu 1, Kathleen Fahey.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Model Performance Metrics, Ambient Data Sets.

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.

Biocomplexity Project: N-deposition Model Evaluation UCR, CE-CERT, Air Quality Modeling Group Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains.

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

Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,

A Comparative Dynamic Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modeling Systems Steven Smyth a,b, Michael Moran c, Weimin Jiang a, Fuquan Yang a,

Time: Nov 3, 1998 South Coast Air Basin CAMx model 210 x 120 km domain 1 hour time step 2 x 2 km grid cells mid noon Concentration (  g m -3 )

Time: Nov 3, 1998 South Coast Air Basin CAMx model 210 x 120 km domain 1 hour time step 2 x 2 km grid cells mid noon Concentration (ppb) benzene.

Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.

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.

URBAN POLLUTION MODELING IN WINTER – JAPAN EXPERIENCE Toshimasa Ohara (Shizuoka University) Yuki Otsuka (Shizuoka University) Seiji Sugata (National Inst.

Background Air Quality in the United States Under Current and Future Emissions Scenarios Zachariah Adelman, Meridith Fry, J. Jason West Department of Environmental.

October 17, 20065th Annual CMAS Conference1 Photochemical Modeling Investigation of an Extended Winter PM Episode in Central California 1. Air Resources.

PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,

Regional Haze Modeling RPO Update Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM National RPO Meeting, Dallas, TX December 3, 2002.

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

Examination of the impact of recent laboratory evidence of photoexcited NO 2 chemistry on simulated summer-time regional air quality Golam Sarwar, Robert.

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

November 15, 2006CRPAQS TC Meeting1 Photochemical Modeling Investigation of an Extended Winter PM Episode in Central California 1. Air Resources Board,

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

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.

Regional Modeling Update September 12, 2002 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Ajith Kaduwela, Ph.D Luis F. Woodhouse, Ph.D.

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.

Modeling Overview For Barrio Logan Community Health Neighborhood Assessment Program Andrew Ranzieri Vlad Isakov Tony Servin Shuming Du October 10, 2001.

1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.

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

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.

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

PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.

Comparing Modal and Sectional Approaches in Modeling Particulate Matter in Northern California K. Max Zhang 1, Jinyou Liang 2, Anthony S. Wexler 1 and.

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.

Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Effects of Liquid Water on Secondary Inorganic Aerosol in Central California During a Winter Episode 1 Planning.

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

A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,

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

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.

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Impacts of Ethanol Fuel on PM Concentrations in Northern California during a Winter Episode 1 Planning and Technical.

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.

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,

1 Overview Community Health Modeling Working Group Meeting Tony Servin, P.E. Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support Division May 6, 2003.

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MADRID: A NEW AEROSOL MODULE IN MODELS-3/CMAQ Yang Zhang*, Betty Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shiang-Yuh Wu and Christian.

Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.

P ROGNOSTIC O ZONE M ODELING USING MM5 AND CAM X FOR THE S OUTH C OAST A IR B ASIN Sang-Mi Lee and Joe Cassmassi South Coast Air Quality Management District.

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.

Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.

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.

Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,

A Comparison Study of CMAQ Aerosol Prediction by Two Thermodynamic Modules: UHAERO V.S. ISORROPIA Case study for January 2002 episode Fang-Yi Cheng 1,

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.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

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.

University of Maryland, AOSC Brown Bag Seminar

Models-3/CMAQ Applications in California

Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency

10th CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC 2010 October 11-13

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

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

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

7th Annual CMAS Conference

Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA

WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego

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

Presentation transcript:

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 1, Bruce Jackson 1, Paul Livingstone 1, Daniel Chau 1, and Ajith Kaduwela 1,2 1 Planning and Technical Support Division Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency 2 Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California at Davis

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting2 DISCLAIMER The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the California Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting3 South Coast Air Basin One of the most polluted regions and the most studied region in the world.

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting4 South Coast Air Basin 116×80 5 km 2 grid cells

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting5 Simulation Setup for 2005 MM5 (South Coast AQMD) Emissions – CARB/SCAQMD Measurements: Rubidoux – Riverside (RUB) and Los Angeles (LA) –PM species concentrations: STN database PM2.5, NO3, SO4, NH4, OC, EC –Hourly gaseous species concentrations: AIRS/AQS database O 3, CO, NO, NO 2, SO 2 Model predictions –PM - 9 grid cells 24-hr average concentration –O 3, - 1 grid cell hourly Meteorology

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting6 Model Configuration OptionsCMAQCAMx Horizontal advectionPPMBOTT Vertical advectionPPMBOTT Vertical diffusionEddy diffusion Mini. vert. diffusivity0.1 m 2 s -1 Gas phase chemistryCB4 Gas phase chem. solverEBICMC Aqueous chemistryRADM Aerosol chemistryAE3EFC Aerosol representation3 lognormal modes2 sections Vertical layers98 Spin-up days78 CMAQ Version 4.6 vs. CAMx Version 4.2

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting7 Species Mapping: CMAQ vs. CAMx CompoundCMAQCAMx NO3ANO3I + ANO3JNO3F SO4ASO4I + ASO4JSO4F NH4ANH4I + ANH4JNH4F ECAECI + AECJECF OCAORGAI + AORGAJ + AORGPAI + AORGPAJ + AORGBI + AORGBJ SOA1 + SOA2 + SOA3 + SOA4 + SOA5 + POMF PM2.5ANO3I + ANO3J + ASO4I + ASO4J + ANH4I + ANH4J + AORGAI + AORGAJ + AORGPAI + AORGPAJ + AORGBI + AORGBJ + AECI + AECJ + A25J NO3F + SO4F + NH4F + ECF + SOA1 + SOA2 + SOA3 + SOA4 + SOA5 + POMF + OTRF

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting8 Outline of Comparison and Analysis Scatter Plots –CMAQ vs. Observation –CAMx vs. Observation –CMAQ vs. CAMx –PM species, annual plots at Rubidoux –O 3, quarterly plots at Rubidoux Box Plots –PM species, weekly –Gas species, 24-hour Statistics FBIAS - Fractional BiasFERRFractional Error NMB - Normalized Mean Bias NMENormalized Mean Error

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting9 PM 2.5 Scatter Plots

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting10 PM 2.5 Box Plots

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting11 PM Species Scatter Plots

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting12 O 3 Scatter Plots

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting13 O 3 Box Plots

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting14 Statistics – Gaseous Species O3CONONO2SO2 %CMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMx RUB FBIAS FERR NMB NME LA FBIAS FERR NMB NME

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting15 Statistics – PM species PM2.5SO4NO3NH4OCEC %CMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMxCMAQCAMx RUB FBIAS FERR NMB NME LA FBIAS FERR NMB NME

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting16 Statistics at Rubidoux

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting17 Conclusions Annual simulations over South Coast Air Basin performed with both CMAQ and CAMx CMAQ and CAMx model performance evaluated at Roubidoux and Los Angeles Model predictions correlate well with each other Model predictions correlate reasonably well with observations

October 1-3, 20076th Annual CMAS Meeting18 International Aerosol Modeling Algorithms (I AM A) Conference Bi-annual in-depth look at the inner-workings of aerosol models (complements the annual CMAS Meeting) Wednesday, December 5 th – Friday, December 7 th, 2007 (just before the AGU meeting in San Francisco) University of California at Davis Impressive list of U.S. and international invited speakers Information at