Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service  1200 and 0600 UTC OZONE 48-h experimental, 8-h (daily max) 48-h experimental,

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

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

Examples of 1-Hour NO 2 and SO 2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP June 14, 2011.

Jess Charba Fred Samplatsky Phil Shafer Meteorological Development Laboratory National Weather Service, NOAA Updated September 06, 2013 LAMP Convection.

Measurement and spatial distribution of ozone in the Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Geoff Henshaw, Aeroqual Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand. John Faust.

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

1 National Air Quality Forecast Capability: First Steps Toward Implementation October 28, 2003 Paula Davidson National Weather Service Program Manager.

Working together for clean air Puget Sound Area Ozone Modeling NW AIRQUEST December 4, 2006 Washington State University Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Washington.

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.

1 Localized Aviation Model Output Statistics Program (LAMP): Improvements to convective forecasts in response to user feedback Judy E. Ghirardelli National.

Transitioning CMAQ for NWS Operational AQ Forecasting Jeff McQueen*, Pius Lee*, Marina Tsildulko*, G. DiMego*, B. Katz* R. Mathur,T. Otte, J. Pleim, J.

Adjusting Numerical Model Data in Real Time: AQMOS Prepared by Clinton P. MacDonald, Dianne S. Miller, Timothy S. Dye, Kenneth J. Craig, Daniel M. Alrick.

2003 OZONE DATA SHARING PROJECT UPDATE Air Quality Advisory Committee September 23, 2003.

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,

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.

1 Aircraft Data: Geographic Distribution, Acquisition, Quality Control, and Availability Work at NOAA/ESRL/GSD and elsewhere.

Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.

2009 Ozone Season Summary and Air Quality Trends Jen Desimone and Sunil Kumar MWAQC Meeting, COG September 23, 2009.

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

Comparison of three photochemical mechanisms (CB4, CB05, SAPRC99) for the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model for O 3 during the 2004 ICARTT study Shaocai.

Performance of NOAA-EPA air quality predictions, Jerry Gorline and Pius Lee Overview of the National Air Quality Forecasting Capability with.

Latest results in verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta, Joanna Linkowska Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw 9th COSMO General.

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.

The latest results of verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta Joanna Linkowska COSMO General Meeting, Cracow September 2008 Institute of Meteorology.

Modification of GFS Land Surface Model Parameters to Mitigate the Near- Surface Cold and Wet Bias in the Midwest CONUS: Analysis of Parallel Test Results.

Ozone Update Ben Wells U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Analysis Group February 11, 2014.

Verification of Global Ensemble Forecasts Fanglin Yang Yuejian Zhu, Glenn White, John Derber Environmental Modeling Center National Centers for Environmental.

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

Preliminary Experiences with the Multi-Model Air Quality Forecasting System for New York State Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Winston Hao.

Evaluation of modeled surface ozone biases as a function of cloud cover fraction Hyun Cheol Kim 1,2, Pius Lee 1, Fong Ngan 1,2, Youhua Tang 1,2, Hye Lim.

OTAG Air Quality Analysis Workgroup Volume I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dave Guinnup and Bob Collom, Workgroup co-chair Telling the OTAG Ozone Story with Data.

Are Numerical Weather Prediction Models Getting Better? Cliff Mass, David Ovens, and Jeff Baars University of Washington.

Impact of Meteorological Inputs on Surface O 3 Prediction Jianping Huang 9 th CMAS Annual Conference Oct. 12, 2010, Chapel, NC.

Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS AIRS Profile Assimilation - Case Study results Shih-Hung Chou, Brad Zavodsky Gary Jedlovec,

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,

A N EW H AMPSHIRE G ROUND -L EVEL O ZONE P OLLUTION F ORECASTING T OOL U SING M ETEOROLOGICAL C RITERIA Northeast Regional Operational Workshop Presenter:

Post-processing air quality model predictions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at NCEP James Wilczak, Irina Djalalova, Dave Allured (ESRL) Jianping Huang,

The LAMP/HRRR MELD FOR AVIATION FORECASTING Bob Glahn, Judy Ghirardelli, Jung-Sun Im, Adam Schnapp, Gordana Rancic, and Chenjie Huang Meteorological Development.

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,

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.

AN EVALUATION OF THE ETA-CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL AS PART OF NOAA’S NATIONAL PROGRAM CMAQ AIRNOW AIRNOW Brian Eder* Daiwen Kang * Ken Schere* Ken.

The use of a multi-model ensemble in local operational ozone forecasting William F. Ryan Jeremy Geiger Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State.

CCOS TC Kickoff Meeting Cluster Analysis for CCOS Domain Ahmet Palazoglu (P.I.) Scott Beaver Swathi Pakalapati University of California, Davis Department.

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.

Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston.

ATM 401/501 Status of Forecasting: Spring Forecasting at NCEP Environmental Modeling Center Ocean Prediction Center.

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.

EGU Forecasting Tool (Data Elements) Office of Air Quality (800) John Welch Senior Environmental Manager IDEM.

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

Overview of SPC Efforts in Objective Verification of Convection-Allowing Models and Ensembles Israel Jirak, Chris Melick, Patrick Marsh, Andy Dean and.

1 National Air Quality Forecasting Capability: Progress and Plans June 20, 2005 Paula M Davidson NWS Program Manager for Air Quality Forecasting.

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,

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

Potential use of TEMPO AOD & NO2 retrievals to support wild fire plume & O3 & PM2.5 forecast in National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) Pius.

Nescaum MAC Meeting April 24-25, 2007 Alison Simcox, EPA New England

Advances in National Air Quality Forecast Capability predictions

Two Decades of WRF/CMAQ simulations over the continental U. S

National Air Quality Forecast Capability bias correction for ozone

Evaluation of Operational and Experimental CMAQ Ozone and PM

Predicting Future-Year Ozone Concentrations: Integrated Observational-Modeling Approach for Probabilistic Evaluation of the Efficacy of Emission Control.

Quantification of Lightning NOX and its Impact on Air Quality over the Contiguous United States Daiwen Kang, Rohit Mathur, Limei Ran, Gorge Pouliot, David.

Examples of 1-Hour NO2 and SO2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP April 28, 2011.

Pius Lee, Youhua Tang, Jeff McQueen, Ho-Chun Huang,

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

Recent performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability

Presentation transcript:

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service  1200 and 0600 UTC OZONE 48-h experimental, 8-h (daily max) 48-h experimental, 8-h (daily max)  0600 UTC AEROSOLS 48-h developmental, 1-h, 24-h 48-h developmental, 1-h, 24-h Performance evaluation of NOAA-EPA air quality predictions Jerry Gorline and Pius Lee NAM drives the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service  National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Model data (1-h, 8-h avg ozone, 1-h avg aerosols): Pius Lee, Jeff McQueen  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Point observations: (ozone: ~1300, aerosols: ~600) Scott Jackson, Brad Johns, Phil Dickerson  Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL) Performance evaluation: Wilson Shaffer, Jerry Gorline, Michael Schenk, Valery Dagostaro, Arthur Taylor National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC) Program Manager: Paula Davidson

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service  Provide performance metrics to aid model development, CONUS and by region.  Use spatial maps to complement performance measures. performance measures.  Conduct case studies as needed.  Performance metrics include: FC, TS, POD, FAR, MAE, Bias. MDL’s role in air quality performance evaluation effort (ozone and aerosols)

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service 2x2 contingency definitions  FC = (a + d)/(a + b + c + d)  TS = a /(a + b + c) Thresholds Used:  POD = a/(a + c) Ozone: 76 ppb  FAR = b/(a + b) Aerosols: 40 ug/m 3

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service 2007 ozone activity a + c a, b, c More active in 2007 a, b, c 2008 ozone activity a + c

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Mean 8-h ozone predictions and observations w/ bias July 2008 ozone, CONUS, 1200 UTC cycle ~3 ppb higher bias in 2008, at peak ozone

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Fraction Correct (FC), Threat Score (TS) 85 vs. 76 ppb, 1200 UTC cycle, 2008 Ozone: higher TS with 76 ppb

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Ozone, Threat Score (TS) vs. number of observed exceedances, 2007 vs slightly less under-prediction in 2008

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Ozone, Threat Score (TS), vs UTC Cycle 0600 slightly better

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Daily max, 8-h ozone, July 17, UTC experimental FC=0.800 TS=0.360 POD=0.677 FAR=0.566 Predicted in dark blue Observed as red dots

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Daily max, 8-h ozone, July 18, UTC experimental FC=0.773 TS=0.362 POD=0.766 FAR=0.593 Predicted in dark blue Observed as red dots

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Daily max, 8-h ozone, July 19, UTC experimental FC=0.822 TS=0.261 POD=0.714 FAR=0.708 Predicted in dark blue Observed as red dots

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Six U.S. regions used in AQ verification: PC, RM, LM, UM, NE, SE

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Threat Score (TS), UTC experimental Ozone, by region, 76 ppb Highest TS in Pacific Coast region

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Daily max, 8-h ozone, UTC experimental Pacific Coast region, 76 ppb

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Daily max, 8-h ozone, UTC experimental Pacific Coast region, 76 ppb More activity in 2008 better performance

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Summary: experimental ozone prediction  2008 performance similar to 2007, slightly more under-prediction in June more under-prediction in June  0600 UTC (morning update), improved guidance compared to 1200 UTC cycle. guidance compared to 1200 UTC cycle.  The new lower threshold of 76 ppb resulted in higher Threat Score, lower resulted in higher Threat Score, lower Fraction Correct compared to 85 ppb. Fraction Correct compared to 85 ppb.  Better 2008 performance in Pacific Coast region compared to region compared to 2007.

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service 1-h aerosol prediction April – June, 2008, CONUS transition to under-prediction Seasonal change in May 2008

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service 1-h aerosol prediction July - September, 2008, CONUS transition to over-prediction Seasonal change in Sept 2008 July 4 spike in observed aerosols

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Regional performance, aerosols Fraction Correct (FC), 40 ug/m – 2008, developmental Higher FC in the summer 2008

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Regional performance, aerosols Threat Score (TS), 40 ug/m – 2008, developmental Lower TS in the summer 2008

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Fraction Correct (FC), Threat Score (TS) 40 vs. 35 ug/m 3, 0600 UTC cycle, 2008 Aerosols: Higher TS with 35 ug/m 3

Meteorological Development Laboratory / OST / National Weather Service Summary: Developmental Aerosol Prediction  Over-prediction beginning In Nov 2007, ending in late Apr ending in late Apr  Under-prediction beginning in May 2008, over-prediction returning Sept over-prediction returning Sept  The new lower threshold of 35 ug/m 3 resulted in higher Threat Score (TS), lower Fraction Correct (FC), compared to 40 ug/m 3.  Improved performance in Fall 2008.