Modeling & Monitoring / Data Analysis Joint Session RPO National Workgroup Meeting December 3, 2002, 1:00 - 3:00 Crown Plaza, Dallas, TX.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe These slides do not provide a complete description of the requirements.
Advertisements

1 PM NAAQS: Update on Coarse Particle Monitoring and Research Efforts Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA Presentation at the.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
1 st Chimere workshop March 2005Stortini,Bonafe,Deserti,Minguzzi,Jongen Operational implementation of NINFA in Northern Italy ARPA Servizio IdroMeteorologico.
EUROPEAN UNION INITIATIVES AND REQUIREMENTS : AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AS A POLICY MECHANISM Sonja Vidič Meteorological and Hydrological Service of Croatia.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Remote Sensing of Hydrological Variables over the Red Arkansas Eric Wood Matthew McCabe Rafal Wojcik Hongbo Su Huilin Gao Justin Sheffield Princeton University.
WORKING GROUP I MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TFMM Workshop, Paris, 2006, Nov 29 –Dec 1.
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,
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.
October 17, 20065th Annual CMAS Conference1 Photochemical Modeling Investigation of an Extended Winter PM Episode in Central California 1. Air Resources.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
©2005,2006 Carolina Environmental Program Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions SMOKE Modeling System Zac Adelman and Andy Holland Carolina Environmental.
Supplemental Regional Haze-Related Data Rich Poirot, VT DEC Dallas RPO Mtg, December 2002.
LADCO and AQAST: one regional air quality manager’s perspective Donna Kenski Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium Houston AQAST Meeting, Jan 15-17, 2013.
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.
Performance evaluation of isoprene in ozone modeling of Houston Mark Estes, Clint Harper, Jim Smith, Weining Zhao, and Dick Karp Texas Commission on Environmental.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Model Performance Evaluation Database and Software Betty K. Pun, Kristen Lohman, Shu-Yun Chen, and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Presentation at.
Meteorological Service of Canada Environment Canada Cloud Cover Changes and Their Impacts on Solar Energy Production in North America PERD Climate Change.
Soontae Kim and Daewon W. Byun Comparison of Emission Estimates from SMOKE and EPS2 Used for Studying Houston-Galveston Air Quality Institute for Multidimensional.
1 CCOS Update November 3, 2006 PC Meeting Project Status –Completed Projects Results –On-Going Projects Status Plan for CCOS Final Phase –Guiding Principles.
1/30 2-year observation of Organic Aerosol properties In Cape Corsica J. Sciare, and LSCE.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
RPO Monitoring Issues by Marc Pitchford, Ph.D. WRAP Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Co-chair.
VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
Ambient Air Monitoring Networks 2010 CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, NC October 13, 2010 Rich Scheffe, Sharon Phillips, Wyatt Appel, Lew Weinstock, Tim Hanley,
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.
Evaluating ammonia (NH 3 ) predictions in the NOAA National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC) using in situ aircraft measurements William Battye,
Research Progress Discussions of Coordinated Emissions Research Suggestions to Guide this Initiative Focus on research emission inventories Do not interfere.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Here are some “final” results for 2005, based on adding up just the time periods in 2005.
Regional Modeling Joseph Cassmassi South Coast Air Quality Management District USA.
National Ambient Air Monitoring Networks Now and Later PM model evaluation workshop.
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.
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.
Fossil fuel CO 2 and CH 4 emissions (mass, isotopic, spatial and temporal descriptions) Session organizers: Robert Andres, Marc Fischer, Kevin Gurney Brief.
1 MANE-VU Modeling Plans Inter-RPO Modeling Meeting May 25, 2004 Shan He, Emily Savelli, Jung-Hun Woo, John Graham and Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM.
Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,
The What, Where, When and Why of Wintertime Ozone Formation – Results of the 2009 Wyoming Ozone Technical Forum Robert A. Baxter, CCM David Bush T&B Systems,
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
AQ Emissions Data Considerations and Needs Greg Frost NOAA, University of Colorado Two key kinds of AQ data on chemical species: Emissions and Ambient.
Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.
1 Preliminary evaluation of the 2002 Base B1 CMAQ simulation: Temporal Analysis A more complete statistical evaluation, including diurnal variations, of.
Proposal to MANE_VU: Extensions to the VIEWS: CATT Analysis Tool Full Proposal Text Full Proposal Text R. Husar, PI, CAPITA Revised, October 8, 2003 The.
Fire, Smoke & Air Quality: Tools for Data Exploration & Analysis : Data Sharing/Processing Infrastructure This project integrates.
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
Research Progress Discussions of Coordinated Emissions Research Suggestions to Guide this Initiative Focus on research emission inventories Do not interfere.
There is increasing evidence that intercontinental transport of air pollutants is substantial Currently, chemical transport models are the main tools for.
7. Air Quality Modeling Laboratory: individual processes Field: system observations Numerical Models: Enable description of complex, interacting, often.
Updates to model algorithms and inputs for the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS) model Jesse Bash, Kirk Baker, George Pouliot, Donna Schwede,
CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
SMOKE-MOVES Processing
EPA Tools and Data Update
Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
Time-Integrated Particle Measurements : Status in Canada
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.
Status of the PM NAAQS Review
Measurement Needs for AQ Models
Presentation transcript:

Modeling & Monitoring / Data Analysis Joint Session RPO National Workgroup Meeting December 3, 2002, 1:00 - 3:00 Crown Plaza, Dallas, TX

Session Format Guided, open discussion Focused on, but not limited to list of topics How we can/do use each others information Session notes will be sent to Discussion Group Leads within a week 10 minute break at 1:55, if needed

Discussion Topics Monitor to model comparison –Species mapping –Spatial representation –Temporal issues Supplemental measurements Unexplained fine mass Base year discussion Open discussion / Q&A

Model to Monitor Comparison Species mapping –Base inventories are speciated in the emissions processing steps and are maintained through the photochemical modeling Course/primary particles, aerosols, gasses Specific species that are not commonly measured Speciation is dependent on chemical mechanism –Examples provided by Kirk Baker follow

Speciation for Models Full CB4 = CMAQ, CAMx-M4, PMCAMx Micro-CB4 = REMSADv7

Model to Monitor Comparison Species mapping –Photochemical model outputs are specific fields on an hourly basis. – How modeled and monitored species are compared depends on the specific specie(s) of interest –Examples provided by Kirk Baker follow

Model to Monitor Comparison Species mapping –Current questions How to standardize species mapping Are composite species being compared correctly Are there monitoring (modeling) nuances that modeling (monitoring) should know Are there supplemental observations available for comparison with non-standard species Can modeling results be used to help make decisions on supplemental monitoring or special studies

Model to Monitor Comparison Spatial representation –Photochemical model output provides a value for a grid cell of some size 36km x 36km 1296 km 2 12km x 12km144 km 2 4km x 4 km16 km 2 –Methods include comparing monitored data to the value of the grid cell it is within, averages of surrounding grid cells, weighting schemes, etc.

Model to Monitor Comparison Spatial representation –Current questions What spatial extent are monitors representing –Urban v. rural –Geographic differences –Types of monitors –Differences between species –Seasonal considerations What are the best methods for comparing spatial information (modeled) with point measurements

Model to Monitor Comparison Temporal issues –Photochemical model output is hourly –Monitored data varies from continuous to 24- hour integrated samples taken every few days –Diurnal patterns help diagnose model performance and model representation of real world physical and chemical processes

Model to Monitor Comparison Temporal issues –Unrealistic to maintain a significant network of continuous, speciated monitors at this time –Modeling could utilize targeted short term supplemental measurements of continuous standard and non-standard measurements –Can preliminary model results be used to identify areas of interest such as chemical gradients, flow corridors, diurnal, seasonal, or specie specific areas of interest, for targeted supplemental monitoring –What can be learned from BRAVO, SAMI, OZZIE, etc.

Supplemental Measurements Are additional field studies being considered Is it plausible to plan for short term, targeted continuous monitoring projects What is available or planned for information above the surface level Where and when would supplemental measurements make the most sense

Unexplained Fine Mass What is it? How to account for in model to monitor comparison Seasonality? Diurnal pattern? Can modeled moisture fields be of help

Base Year Discussion Current thought –Most recent EI possible for regulatory modeling –Allows EI to focus efforts –More ambient data available (relatively) –Lacks new monitoring information currently coming on line –Scheduled time frame may be getting shortened –Any thoughts?

Open Discussion / Q&A