National Air Quality Forecast Capability in the United States Ivanka Stajner NOAA NWS/OST - Background on NAQFC - Progress in 2011: Ozone, Smoke, Dust,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Satellite based estimates of surface visibility for state haze rule implementation planning Air Quality Applied Sciences Team 6th Semi-Annual Meeting (Jan.
Advertisements

CO budget and variability over the U.S. using the WRF-Chem regional model Anne Boynard, Gabriele Pfister, David Edwards National Center for Atmospheric.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
PREV ’AIR : An operational system for large scale air quality monitoring and forecasting over Europe
National Air Quality Forecasting Capability: Nationwide Prediction and Future Enhancements Ivanka Stajner 1,5, Daewon Byun 2,†, Pius Lee 2, Jeff McQueen.
Expansion of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability Ivanka Stajner1, Jeff McQueen2, Pius Lee3, Roland Draxler3, Phil Dickerson4, Kyle Wedmark1,5,
1 National Air Quality Forecast Capability: First Steps Toward Implementation October 28, 2003 Paula Davidson National Weather Service Program Manager.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Progress at NOAA/NWS/NCEP
Evaluation of Real-time Air Quality Forecasts from WRF-NMM/CMAQ and NMMB/CMAQ Using Discover-AQ P-3B Airborne Measurements Youhua Tang 1,2, Jeffery T.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Image: MODIS Land Group, NASA GSFC March 2000 Air Quality Products from.
Tianfeng Chai 1,2, Alice Crawford 1,2, Barbara Stunder 1, Roland Draxler 1, Michael J. Pavolonis 3, Ariel Stein 1 1.NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, College.
Transitioning CMAQ for NWS Operational AQ Forecasting Jeff McQueen*, Pius Lee*, Marina Tsildulko*, G. DiMego*, B. Katz* R. Mathur,T. Otte, J. Pleim, J.
Air Resources Laboratory Yunsoo Choi 12, Daewon Byun 1, Pius Lee 1, Rick Saylor 1, Ariel Stein 12, Daniel Tong 12, Hyun-Cheol Kim 12, Fantine Ngan 13,
Visualization, Exploration, and Model Comparison of NASA Air Quality Remote Sensing data via Giovanni Ana I. Prados, Gregory Leptoukh, Arun Gopalan, and.
A Case Study Using the CMAQ Coupling with Global Dust Models Youhua Tang, Pius Lee, Marina Tsidulko, Ho-Chun Huang, Sarah Lu, Dongchul Kim Scientific Applications.
CMAS Conference, October 16 – 18, 2006 The work presented here was performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with partial.
Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, Urban vs. Rural and Other Comparisons Jerry Gorline and Jeff McQueen  Jerry Gorline, NWS/OST/MDL.
Trajectory validation using tracers of opportunity such as fire plumes and dust episodes Narendra Adhikari March 26, 2007 ATMS790 Seminar (Dr. Pat Arnott)
1 Expansions to NOAA’s National Air Quality Forecast Capability Progress in 2008 October 7, 2008 Paula Davidson*, Rohit Mathur, Jeff McQueen, Scott Jackson,
Remote Sensing and Modeling of the Georgia 2007 Fires Eun-Su Yang, Sundar A. Christopher, Yuling Wu, Arastoo P. Biazar Earth System Science Center University.
Performance of NOAA-EPA air quality predictions, Jerry Gorline and Pius Lee Overview of the National Air Quality Forecasting Capability with.
1 GOES-R Air Quality Proving Ground Leads: UAH UMBC NESDIS/STAR.
Air Resources Laboratory CMAS meeting Chapel Hill, North Carolina Yunsoo Choi 1,2, Hyuncheol Kim 1,2, Daniel Tong 1,2, Pius Lee 1, Rick Saylor 3, Ariel.
National Air Quality Forecast Capability: Towards prediction of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Ivanka Stajner 1, Jeff McQueen 2, Pius Lee 3, Ariel Stein.
Source-Specific Forecasting of Air Quality Impacts with Dynamic Emissions Updating & Source Impact Reanalysis Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu.
Air Quality Proving Ground 3 rd Users Workshop Raymond Hoff, UMBC Shobha Kondragunta, NESDIS STAR Amy Huff, Penn State University Raymond Hoff, UMBC Shobha.
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
Air Quality Applications of NOAA Operational Satellite Data S. Kondragunta NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research.
Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.
Comparison of CMAQ Lightning NOx Schemes and Their Impacts Youhua Tang 1,2, Li Pan 1,2, Pius Lee 1, Jeffery T. McQueen 4, Jianping Huang 4,5, Daniel Tong.
Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data & Estimating fire emissions: satellite.
Impact of Meteorological Inputs on Surface O 3 Prediction Jianping Huang 9 th CMAS Annual Conference Oct. 12, 2010, Chapel, NC.
OVERVIEW OF ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES: Daniel J. Jacob Ozone and particulate matter (PM) with a global change perspective.
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.
1 Air Quality : National AQ Forecasting Capability surface O 3 and PM 2.5 Presented By: Pius Lee (OAR/ARL) Contributors: Jeffery McQueen, Jianping Huang,
Developing an Interactive Atmosphere-Air Pollutant Forecast System Jeff McQueen, Youhua Tang, Sarah Lu, Ho-Chun Huang, Dongchul Kim, Pius Lee and Marina.
Post-processing air quality model predictions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at NCEP James Wilczak, Irina Djalalova, Dave Allured (ESRL) Jianping Huang,
Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Using combined Lagrangian and Eulerian modeling approaches to improve particulate matter estimations in the Eastern US. Ariel F. Stein 1, Rohit Mathur.
Boundary layer depth verification system at NCEP M. Tsidulko, C. M. Tassone, J. McQueen, G. DiMego, and M. Ek 15th International Symposium for the Advancement.
Comparison of NOAA/NCEP 12km CMAQ Forecasts with CalNEX WP-3 Measurements Youhua Tang 1,2, Jeffery T. McQueen 2, Jianping Huang 1,2, Marina Tsidulko 1,2,
Air Resources Laboratory 1 Comprehensive comparisons of NAQFC surface and column NO 2 with satellites, surface, and field campaign measurements during.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
Chemical Data Assimilation: Aerosols - Data Sources, availability and needs Raymond Hoff Physics Department/JCET UMBC.
Ozone and PM 2.5 verification in NAM-CMAQ modeling system at NCEP in relation to WRF/NMM meteorology evaluation Marina Tsidulko, Jeff McQueen, Pius Lee.
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
1 NOAA-EPA’s National Air Quality Forecast Capability: Progress and Plans October 17, 2006 Paula M. Davidson 1, Nelson Seaman 1, Jeff McQueen 1, Rohit.
Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service  1200 and 0600 UTC OZONE 48-h experimental, 8-h (daily max) 48-h experimental,
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.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.
1 “Air Quality Applications of Satellite Data” Shobha Kondragunta NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research Aura Science Team Meeting,
1 National Air Quality Forecasting Capability: Progress and Plans June 20, 2005 Paula M Davidson NWS Program Manager for Air Quality Forecasting.
Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.
On the Verification of Particulate Matter Simulated by the NOAA-EPA Air Quality Forecast System Ho-Chun Huang 1, Pius Lee 1, Binbin Zhou 1, Jian Zeng 6,
Eun-Su Yang and Sundar A. Christopher Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville Shobha Kondragunta NOAA/NESDIS Improving Air Quality.
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.
Daniel Tong NOAA Air Resources Lab & George Mason University
The National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC)
Potential use of TEMPO AOD & NO2 retrievals to support wild fire plume & O3 & PM2.5 forecast in National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) Pius.
Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.
NOAA NWS (2) NOAA ARL (3) EPA (4) Syneren Technologies
Advances in National Air Quality Forecast Capability predictions
16th Annual CMAS Conference
Potential Performance differences of the National Air Quality Forecasting Capability when upgrading the Chemical Transport Model Pius Lee1, Youhua Tang1,2,
National Air Quality Forecast Capability bias correction for ozone
A Novel Approach for Identifying Dust Storms with Hourly Surface Air Monitors in the Western United States Barry Baker1,2 and Daniel Tong1,2 1National.
National Air Quality Forecast Capability: Recent Progress and Plans
Recent performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability
Presentation transcript:

National Air Quality Forecast Capability in the United States Ivanka Stajner NOAA NWS/OST - Background on NAQFC - Progress in 2011: Ozone, Smoke, Dust, PM2.5 - Looking Ahead IWAQFR Potomac Maryland November 29, 2011

2 National Air Quality Forecast Capability Current and Planned Capabilities, 11/11 Improving the basis for AQ alertsImproving the basis for AQ alerts Providing AQ information for people at riskProviding AQ information for people at risk Near-term Operational Targets: Higher resolution predictionHigher resolution prediction FY11 Prediction Capabilities: Operations:Operations: Ozone nationwide: expanded from EUS to CONUS (9/07), AK (9/10) and HI (9/10) Smoke nationwide: implemented over CONUS (3/07), AK (9/09), and HI (2/10) Experimental testing:Experimental testing: Ozone predictions Dust predictions over CONUS Developmental testing:Developmental testing: Ozone upgrades Components for particulate matter (PM) forecasts 2005: O : O 3, & smoke smoke ozone 2009: smoke 2010: ozone Longer range: Quantitative PM 2.5 predictionQuantitative PM 2.5 prediction

3 Model Components: Linked numerical prediction system Operationally integrated on NCEP’s supercomputer NCEP mesoscale NWP: NMMBNCEP mesoscale NWP: NMMB NOAA/EPA community model for AQ: CMAQNOAA/EPA community model for AQ: CMAQ NOAA HYSPLIT model for smoke predictionNOAA HYSPLIT model for smoke prediction Observational Input: NWS weather observations; NESDIS fire locationsNWS weather observations; NESDIS fire locations EPA emissions inventoryEPA emissions inventory National Air Quality Forecast Capability End-to-End Operational Capability Gridded forecast guidance products On NWS servers: airquality.weather.gov and ftp-serversOn NWS servers: airquality.weather.gov and ftp-servers On EPA serversOn EPA servers Updated 2x dailyUpdated 2x daily Verification basis, near-real time: Ground-level AIRNow observationsGround-level AIRNow observations Satellite smoke observationsSatellite smoke observations Customer outreach/feedback State & Local AQ forecasters coordinated with EPAState & Local AQ forecasters coordinated with EPA Public and Private Sector AQ constituentsPublic and Private Sector AQ constituents AIRNow

4 Progress in 2011 Progress in 2011 Ozone, smoke nationwide; dust testing Ozone Upgrades: Nationwide predictions since 9/10 –Operations: Updated emissions for 2011 (CEM point sources, DOE projection factors); Predictions driven by a new NMMB meteorological model (since 10/18/11) –Experimental testing: CB-05 mechanism –Developmental testing: Changing boundary conditions, dry deposition, PBL in CB-05; testing newer CMAQ driven by NMMB meteorological model Smoke: Expanded Forecast Guidance Nationwide –Developmental testing: Improvements to verification Aerosols: Developmental testing providing comprehensive dataset for diagnostic evaluations. (CONUS) –Testing CMAQ 4.6 and with CB-05 chemical mechanism with AERO-4 aerosol modules Qualitative; summertime underprediction consistent with missing source inputs –Dust and smoke inputs: testing dust contributions to PM2.5 from global sources Real-time testing of combining smoke inputs with CMAQ-aerosol –Experimental testing of dust prediction from CONUS sources –Real-time testing of assimilation of surface PM2.5 measurements –R&D efforts continuing in chemical data assimilation, real-time emissions sources, advanced chemical mechanisms

5 Operational Nationwide Ozone Operational predictions at 1-Hr Average Ozone 8-Hr Average Ozone 1-Hr Average Ozone 8-Hr Average Ozone 1-Hr Average Ozone 8-Hr Average Ozone

CONUS, wrt 76ppb Threshold Operational 2010 CONUS, wrt 76ppb Threshold Operational 2011 CONUS, wrt 76ppb Threshold Operational Verification of experimental and developmental predictions: e.g. Youhua Tang with Discover- AQ data, Jerry Gorline for urban/rural, and Yunsoo Choi for weekly cycles CONUS ozone prediction: Summary verification 2009 to 2011

Chemical mechanism sensitivity analysis operational ozone prediction (CB-IV mechanism) Summertime, Eastern US. Sensitivity studies: Box model studies, e.g. organic nitrate treatment (Saylor and Stein – CB05 has more efficient ozone production for each NOx molecule) Emissions (Yunsoo Choi) Planning to update emissions 7 Seasonal bias of daily mean ozone for CONUS Mechanism differences  Ozone production  Precursor budget Seasonal input differences  Emissions  Meteorological parameters in 2009 Operational (CB-IV) Experimental (CB05) Experimental ozone prediction (with CB05 mechanism) shows larger biases than

8h average ozone Western US model bias Eastern US model bias Eastern US observed and forecast mean NAM-CBIV (Production) NMMB-CBIV NAM-CBO5 (Experimental) NMMB-CB05 (Dry dep, LBC and min PBL changes) Western US observed and forecast mean Observations

Impact of meteorological model 9 Operational NAM driven ozone predictionsTesting of NMMB driven ozone predictions Observed monitor values in the circles Impacts of NMMB meteorology and land use changes on air quality predictions discussed by Jeff McQueen

10 Operational Nationwide Smoke Surface Smoke Vertical Smoke Operational predictions at

11 Fire began May 29, 2011, consumed more then 500,000 acres and 32 homes 3 16 injuries 3 ; more then 9000 people evacuated 2 60mph winds contributed to its rapid spread 1 Code orange air quality forecast issued for Albuquerque for 4 days (June 6,8,9,13) - NWS prediction included high smoke concentrations Hazardous air quality predicted by NAQFC and observed in Springerville, AZ NAQFC joined coordination calls with state, local, federal agencies in AZ and NM, and USFS Fire Science Lab in Seattle Wallow fire, June 3 1 Animation of NOAA’s prediction of smoke concentrations in column June 6 (Luna, NM, AP) Wallow Wildfire in Arizona 1Eastern Arizona wildfire still rages, AP, June 5, pictures,0, photogallery 2As Arizona wildfire rages, officials allow some to return home, CNN, June 12, InciWeb, Incident information system, accessed on Oct. 23,

12 MODIS Aqua: June 6, :40 UTC NWS column smoke prediction: June 6, 2011, 21 UTC Smoke from Wallow wildfire Surface PM2.5 observations at Albuquerque, NM on 6/8/ airquality.weather.gov Example of impact on air quality downwind

13 Developmental testing Standalone prediction of airborne dust from dust storms: Wind-driven dust emitted where surface winds exceed thresholds over source regions Source regions with emission potential estimated from monthly MODIS deep blue climatology ( ). HYSPLIT model for transport, dispersion and deposition (Draxler et al., JGR, 2010) Emissions modulated by soil moisture in experimental testing. Developing satellite product for verification (Zeng and Kondragunta) CONUS Dust Predictions: Experimental Testing Experimental predictions at

14 Phoenix, AZ Haboob July 5, 2011 Source: Massive dust storm hit Phoenix, AZ in the evening on July 5, Cloud was reported to be 5,000 feet when it hit, radar shows heights from 8,000-10,000 feet tall and 50 miles wide Originated from Tucson Stopped air traffic for over an hour Arizona DEQ reported a PM10 concentration of 6,348 ug/m 3 during peak of storm at site in downtown Phoenix 1 Storm moved through Phoenix at mph 1 Source: photos-video_n_ html 1.“More Phoenix storms forecast after huge evening dust storm,” storm-weather-abrk.html 2.Phoenix Dust Storm: Arizona Hit with Monstrous ‘Haboob’, video_n_ html

15 Phoenix on July 5 Based on observations, largest impact on Phoenix was between 8 PM and 10 PM LST *Note* AZ three hours behind EDT in summer Predicted surface dust concentrations: - 8PM 158 ug/m PM 631 ug/m 3 Peak values: 996 ug/m 3 at South Phoenix station at 8PM and 506 ug/m 3 at West Phoenix station at 8 PM (AIRNow Tech) Timing of July 5 storm: beginning time of predicted storm is correct, but predicted storm extends past observed ending For dust storm on October 4 near Picacho, AZ developmental predictions (with more sources and emissions modulated by real time soil moisture performed better). This configuration is in experimental testing since November 22.

16 Developmental PM2.5 predictions for Summer 2011 Focus group access only, real-time as resources permit Aerosols over CONUS From NEI sources only  CMAQ: CB05 gases, AERO-4 aerosols  Sea salt emissions and reactions  No climatological wildfire emissions Testing of real-time wildfire smoke emissions in CMAQ Developing dust emissions (e.g. poster by Daniel Tong)

17 Aerosol simulation using emission inventories: Seasonal bias: winter – overprediction, summer – underprediction Intermittent sources (contributions from wildfire smoke are in real time testing) Chemical boundary conditions/trans-boundary inputs (poster by Sarah Lu) Forecast challenges Quantitative PM performance

Speciated evaluation OM underestimated in the summer Unspeciated component overestimated in the winter Examples of biases at several IMPROVE stations in the Eastern US (Rick Saylor, Yunhee Kim et al)

19 Assimilation of surface PM data Assimilation increases correlation between forecast and observed PM2.5 Control is forecast without assimilation 19 Bias ratio Equitable threat score [%] Assimilation reduces bias and increases equitable threat score Pagowski et al QJRMS, 2010 (also talk and poster) Exploring bias correction approaches, e.g. Djalalova et al., Atmospheric Env., 2010

Summary 20 US national AQ forecasting capability status: Ozone and smoke prediction nationwide Experimental testing of dust prediction from CONUS sources Developmental testing of CMAQ aerosol predictions with NEI sources Near-term plans for improvements and testing: Operational dust predictions over CONUS Development of satellite product for verification of dust predictions Understanding/reduction of summertime ozone biases in the CB05 system Development of higher resolution predictions (optimization of prediction code; faster preparation of emission inputs – poster by Hyun Cheol Kim) Development and integration of components for quantitative PM predictions: Integration of NEI, smoke and dust sources; inventory updates Data assimilation, bias correction; starting with surface PM monitor data Inclusion of lateral boundaries from global model predictions Testing advanced chemical mechanisms; evaluation of PM speciation Closer coupling of meteorological and chemical models

21 Acknowledgments: AQF Implementation Team Members Special thanks to Paula Davidson, OST chief scientist and former NAQFC Manager NOAA/NWS/OSTIvanka Stajner NAQFC Manager NOAA/OARJim Meagher NOAA AQ Matrix Manager NWS/OCWWS Jannie Ferrell Outreach, Feedback NWS/OPS/TOC Cindy Cromwell, Bob Bunge Data Communications NWS/OST/MDL Jerry Gorline, Marc Saccucci, Dev. Verification, NDGD Product Development Tim Boyer, Dave Ruth NWS/OSTKyle Wedmark, Ken Carey Program Support NESDIS/NCDCAlan Hall Product Archiving NWS/NCEP Jeff McQueen, Youhua Tang, Marina Tsidulko, AQF model interface development, testing, & integration Jianping Huang Jianping Huang *Sarah Lu, Ho-Chun Huang Global data assimilation and feedback testing *Brad Ferrier, *Dan Johnson, *Eric Rogers, WRF/NAM coordination *Hui-Ya Chuang Geoff Manikin Smoke Product testing and integration Dan Starosta, Chris Magee NCO transition and systems testing Robert Kelly, Bob Bodner, Andrew Orrison HPC coordination and AQF webdrawer NOAA/OAR/ARL Pius Lee, Rick Saylor, Daniel Tong, CMAQ development, adaptation of AQ simulations for AQF Tianfeng Chai, Fantine Ngan, Yunsoo Choi, Hyun-Cheol Kim, Yunhee Kim, Mo Dan Roland Draxler, Glenn Rolph, Ariel Stein HYSPLIT adaptations NESDIS/STAR Shobha Kondragunta, Jian Zeng Smoke Verification product development NESDIS/OSDPD Liqun Ma, Mark Ruminski HMS product integration with smoke forecast tool EPA/OAQPS partners: Chet Wayland, Phil Dickerson, Brad Johns AIRNow development, coordination with NAQFC * * Guest Contributors

22 Operational AQ forecast guidance airquality.weather.gov Further information: Smoke Products Implemented March, 2007 CONUS Ozone Expansion Implemented September, 2007

23 Backup

Figure of merit in space (FMS), which is a fraction of overlap between predicted and observed smoke plumes, exceeds 0.08 in the western US since May 29 when Wallow wildfire began. NESDIS GOES Aerosol/Smoke Product is used for verification 24 Verification of smoke predictions May 2011 Daily time series of FMS for smoke concentrations larger than 1um/m3 May 2011 June 2011 A PR A OV A OB

Real-time Verification Approach for Ozone Real-time verification of data – –Comparing model with observed values from AIRNow ground level observations Daily maximum of 8-hour ozone – –Metric is the fraction correct with respect to threshold commonly used for “code orange” AQ alerts in the US (currently 75 ppb) Skill target for fraction correct ≥ Fraction Correct = (a+c)/(a+b+c+d) Threshold Prediction Observations a c b d

26 Progress from 2005 to 2008: Ozone Prediction Summary Verification 2006 Operational, Eastern US 2005 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Operational, NE US Domain Operational 2007 Experimental, Contiguous US Approved 9/07 to replace Eastern US config in operations Experimental CONUS EUS EUS CONUS 2008 CONUS, wrt 85ppb Threshold

Ozone sensitivity in the CB05 system: Experimental and developmental configuration 27 Experimental test configuration Developmental test configuration with modified: - Lateral boundary conditions, - Minimum PBL height, - Aerodynamic resistance, forest canopy height Model-minus-AIRNow observations: mean for daytime in August 2009 ppbv In depth: Byun et al. in the Processes session

28 Smoke Forecast Tool: What is it? Overview Passive transport/dispersion computed with HYSPLIT & WRF-NAM (or GFS, OCONUS). 24-hr spin-up, 48-hour prediction made daily with 6Z cyclePassive transport/dispersion computed with HYSPLIT & WRF-NAM (or GFS, OCONUS). 24-hr spin-up, 48-hour prediction made daily with 6Z cycle Fire Locations NESDIS/HMS: Filtered ABBA product (only fires with observed associated smoke)NESDIS/HMS: Filtered ABBA product (only fires with observed associated smoke)Emissions USFS’ BlueSky algorithm for emitted PM2.5USFS’ BlueSky algorithm for emitted PM2.5 Smoke Transport/dispersion HYSPLIT (Lagrangian); plume rise based on combustion heat and meteorologyHYSPLIT (Lagrangian); plume rise based on combustion heat and meteorologyVerification Based on satellite imagery for footprint of extent of observed smoke in atmospheric column exceeding threshold of detectionBased on satellite imagery for footprint of extent of observed smoke in atmospheric column exceeding threshold of detection

29 Smoke Forecast Tool Major Components NWP Model NAM/WRF-NMM NOAA/NWS HYSPLIT Module: NOAA/OAR WeatherObservations USFS’s BlueSky Emissions Inventory: USFS NESDIS HMS Fire Locations Verification: NESDIS/GASP Smoke

30 Dust simulation compared with IMPROVE data 30 HYSPLIT simulated air concentrations are compared with IMPROVE data in southern California and western Arizona: Model simulations: contours IMPROVE dust concentration: numbers next to “+“ Variability in model simulation Highest measured value in Phoenix Model and IMPROVE comparable in 3-10 ug/m 3 range Spotty pattern indicates under- prediction. Considering ways for improving representation of smaller dust emission sources. (Draxler et al., JGR, 2010) June-July 2007 average dust concentration

31 Developmental Aerosol Predictions: Summary Verification, 2011 April 1, 2011July 14, 2011

32 AQ Forecaster Feedback Examples Michael Geigert, CT Department of Environmental Protection: Analyzed case on July 11 AIRNow data vs 12Z operational ozone model run Model still over-predicting in most cases, however not unreasonable Model does not yet have the resolution to pick up hourly fluctuations of plume location and intensity Still most problematic at coastal sites, but it still performed very well overall Modeled Examples of model overprediction