Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National.

Published byFrederick Hudson Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National."— Presentation transcript:

1 Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National Exposure Research Laboratory Environmental Protection Agency RTP, NC 27711 * On assignment from Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA

2  2002 “Base” Version Configuration -SAPRC99 gas-phase chemistry -BEIS 3.09 biogenic emissions -AE3 aerosol module CMAQ

3  Spatial Domain - 32 km grid resolution - 22,072 grid cells & Temporal Domain - 1- 14 July, 1999 - 1- 14 July, 1999

4 Species, Metrics and Networks O 3 Hourly, max 1-hr, max 8-hr (AIRS) SO 2 Mean weekly (CASTNet) SO 4 Mean weekly (CASTNet), Mean 24-hr (IMPROVE) NO 3 Mean weekly (CASTNet), Mean 24-hr (IMPROVE) HNO 3 Mean weekly (CASTNet) PM 2.5 Mean 24-hr (IMPROVE) OMC Mean 24-hr (IMPROVE) EC Mean 24-hr (IMPROVE) NH 4 Mean weekly (CASTNet)

5 AIRS A erometric I nformation R etrieval S ystem Hourly data for each of the 14 days 1,032 Stations 234,384 Obs O3O3O3O3

6 IMPROVE I nteragency M onitoring of PRO tected V isual E nvironments 24-hr means for:3, 7, 10, 14 July 50 Stations 200 Observations SO 4 NO 3 PM 2.5 OMCEC

7 CASTNet C lean A ir S tatus and T rends Net work Weekly means for 6 –13 July 59 Stations, 59 Observations SO 2 SO 4 HNO 3 NH 4

8 Statistics- Errors N ormalized M ean E rror R oot M ean S quare E rror M ean A bsolute G ross E rror M ean N ormalized G ross E rror

9 Statistics- Biases M ean B ias M ean N ormalized B ias M ean F ractionalized B ias N ormalized M ean B ias

10 Ozone

11 CMAQ OBS Mean 45.4 34.6 n 234,384 SD 20.2 20.1 R 0.68 CV 44.5% 58.2% MB 10.8 Max 203.2 155.0 MNB 111.0% 95 th 81.0 71.0 MFB 31.4% 75 th 57.7 47.0 MAGE 15.2 50 th 43.6 32.0 MNGE 122.4% 25 th 31.6 20.0 NME 31.4% 5 th 15.4 6.0 NMB 23.7% Min 0.0 1.0 RMSE 19.5 & Ozone - Hourly - Hourly CMAQ Performance - Biases positive and generally small - MNB, MNGE inflated due to small hourly obs. CMAQ = 22.0 + 0.68 OBS

12 CMAQ OBS Mean 67.3 58.1 n 10,149 SD 20.0 20.5 R 0.71 CV 29.7% 35.2% MB 9.2 Max 203.2 155.0 MNB 22.7% 95 th 102.7 95.0 MFB 16.4% 75 th 79.9 71.0 MAGE 14.0 50 th 65.5 56.0 MNGE 29.0% 25 th 52.6 44.0 NME 24.0% 5 th 38.7 28.0 NMB 15.8% Min 12.6 6.0 RMSE 18.0  Ozone - Max 1-hr CMAQ = 28.0 + 0.67 OBS CMAQ Performance - Biases smaller, still positive - Errors smaller - MNB, MNGE closer to other statistics

13 CMAQ OBS Mean 59.4 49.0 n 10,149 SD 17.0 17.2 R 0.72 CV 28.7% 35.1% MB 10.4 Max 168.3 116.0 MNB 29.1% 95 th 88.6 79.8 MFB 21.1% 75 th 70.8 60.0 MAGE 13.2 50 th 58.0 47.6 MNGE 33.6% 25 th 46.7 36.3 NME 26.9% 5 th 34.8 23.4 NMB 21.2% Min 6.7 4.2 RMSE 16.5  Ozone - Max 8-Hr CMAQ = 24.7 + 0.71 OBS CMAQ Performance - Biases positive, smaller than hourly, larger than max 1-hr - Errors generally smaller

14  Ozone - Hourly Observations increase from 1–9 July, then decreases from 10 -12, then increase thru 14. Simulations increase from 1–6 July, decrease on 7 and again on the 10 and 11, then increase thru 14. Daily Boxplots

15  Ozone Difference - Hourly - CMAQ - AIRS Biases are positive on all days. Largest biases occur on 5 and 6 July Smallest occur on 1, 10 and 11 July Daily Boxplots

16  Ozone - Max 1-Hr Daily Boxplots Observations increase from 1–8 July, then decreases from 10 -11, then increase thru 14. Simulations increase from 1–6 July, decrease on 7 and again on the 10 and 11, then increase thru 14.

17  Ozone Differences - Max 1-Hr - CMAQ - AIRS Biases are again positive on all days. Largest biases occur on 5 and 6 July Smallest occur on 1, 10 and 11 July Daily Boxplots

18  Ozone - Max 8-Hr Daily Boxplots

19  Ozone - Max 8-Hr - CMAQ - AIRS Daily Boxplots

20  Ozone Hourly Boxplots Diurnal pattern is well replicated by the model - morning minimum (11 - 12 GMT) - afternoon maximum (20 - 21 GMT)

21 & Ozone CMAQ - AIRS Hourly Boxplots - Biases are always positive - Biases smallest in pm when atmosphere is well mixed.

22 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = -0.07 + 1.13 OBS Mean2.181.99 n174 SD3.272.66 R0.92 CV149.8%133.8% MB0.19 Max15.6013.88 MNB32.6% 95 th 10.709.04 MFB2.1% 75 th 1.761.89 MAGE0.73 50 th 0.720.86 MNGE61.0% 25 th 0.54 NME36.8% 5 th 0.310.24 NMB9.5% Min0.190.14 RMSE1.31  SO 4 - 24-Hr mean - IMPROVE CMAQ Performance - Most simulations within 2:1 - Biases are positive and small - Errors are also small - Results better in eastern US

23 CMAQ OBS Mean4.423.85 n59 SD3.102.64 R0.88 CV70.1%68.7% MB0.57 Max9.7010.10 MNB17.8% 95 th 9.249.15 MFB3.5% 75 th 6.975.47 MAGE1.11 50 th 4.373.16 MNGE40.3% 25 th 0.871.59 NME28.8% 5 th 0.470.50 NMB15.1% Min0.410.36 RMSE1.58  SO 4 - Week mean - CASTNet CMAQ = 0.46 + 1.03 OBS CMAQ Performance - Most simulations within 2:1 - Biases still positive and small - Errors still small - Results better in eastern US

24 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = -0.02+ 0.68 OBS Mean0.170.28 n147 SD0.460.44 R0.64 CV271.5%157.9% MB-0.11 Max3.624.08 MNB-24.7% 95 th 0.890.81 MFB-108.3% 75 th 0.100.29 MAGE0.24 50 th 0.020.17 MNGE109.7% 25 th 0.00.09 NME85.4% 5 th 0.00.04 NMB-39.3% Min0.00.02 RMSE0.39 & NO 3 - 24-Hr mean - IMPROVE CMAQ Performance - Biases are negative and large - Errors are also large - Few simulations within 2:1

25 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = 0.22 + 1.88 OBS Mean3.891.95 n59 SD3.021.16 R0.72 CV77.6%59.7% MB1.94 Max13.404.79 MNB234.3% 95 th 9.313.91 MFB49.2% 75 th 5.692.81 MAGE2.13 50 th 2.921.82 MNGE247.0% 25 th 1.720.98 NME109.2% 5 th 0.370.26 NMB99.5% Min0.080.06 RMSE3.01  HNO 3 - Week mean - CASTNet CMAQ Performance - Most simulations within 2:1 - Biases positive and large - MNB, MNGE inflated due to small observed concentrations

26 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = 0.22 + 1.31 OBS Mean1.681.12 n59 SD1.200.75 R0.82 CV71.0%67.5% MB0.57 Max4.032.83 MNB114.1% 95 th 3.902.50 MFB28.7% 75 th 2.621.52 MAGE0.63 50 th 1.600.94 MNGE124.1% 25 th 0.460.40 NME56.3% 5 th 0.200.24 NMB50.9% Min0.180.05 RMSE0.91  NH 4 - Week mean - CASTNet CMAQ Performance - Almost all simulations within 2:1 - Biases are positive and large - Errors are also large

27 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = 3.70 + 0.81 OBS Mean10.127.95 n164 SD7.516.15 R0.66 CV74.2%77.3% MB2.17 Max40.7028.50 MNB68.8% 95 th 24.9021.70 MFB25.3% 75 th 12.5010.70 MAGE4.25 50 th 7.585.40 MNGE87.8% 25 th 5.173.71 NME53.5% 5 th 3.152.35 NMB27.3% Min0.450.53 RMSE6.13 & PM 2.5 - 24-Hr mean - IMPROVE CMAQ Performance - Most simulations within 2:1 - Biases are positive and large - Errors are also large

28 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = 1.97 + 0.89 OBS Mean4.813.20 n138 SD3.712.29 R0.55 CV77.0%71.5% MB1.61 Max29.1012.50 MNB112.8% 95 th 12.207.85 MFB37.1% 75 th 5.814.18 MAGE2.23 50 th 3.802.74 MNGE127.2% 25 th 2.831.66 NME97.4% 5 th 1.530.79 NMB70.3% Min0.030.15 RMSE3.49  OMC - 24-Hr mean - IMPROVE CMAQ Performance - Majority simulations within 2:1 - Biases are positive and large - Errors are also rather large`

29 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = 0.07 + 0.81 OBS Mean0.310.29 n136 SD0.340.23 R0.54 CV112.8%81.1% MB 0.02 Max2.331.56 MNB80.0% 95 th 0.960.67 MFB-7.0% 75 th 0.340.37 MAGE0.17 50 th 0.190.21 MNGE128.6% 25 th 0.120.15 NME58.6% 5 th 0.040.03 NMB-6.6% Min0.000.01 RMSE0.29 & EC - 24-Hr mean - IMPROVE CMAQ Performance - Majority simulations within 2:1 - Biases are small and mixed - Errors are large

30 CMAQ OBS CMAQ = -0.02 + 2.66 OBS Mean2.240.85 n59 SD1.890.44 R0.63 CV84.4%52.4% MB1.40 Max7.561.78 MNB152.4% 95 th 6.331.61 MFB58.5% 75 th 3.421.23 MAGE1.58 50 th 1.880.80 MNGE170.0% 25 th 0.590.52 NME185.9% 5 th 0.150.20 NMB164.7% Min0.090.11 RMSE2.15  SO 2 - Week mean - CASTNet CMAQ Performance - Biases are positive and very large - Errors are also very large

31 nrMBMNB % MFB % MAGEMNGE % NME % NMB % RMSE O 3 Hourly234,3840.6810.8111.0 31.415.2122.4 31.4 23.719.5 O 3 Max 1- hr 10,1490.71 9.2 22.7 16.414.0 29.0 24.0 15.818.0 O 3 Max 8- hr 10,1490.7210.4 29.1 21.113.2 33.6 26.9 21.216.5 CASTNet SO 4 IMPROVE 590.88 0.57 17.8 3.5 1.11 40.3 28.8 15.1 1.58 1740.92 0.19 32.6 2.1 0.73 61.0 36.8 9.5 1.31 NO 3 1470.64 -0.11 -24.7-108.3 0.24109.7 85.4-39.3 0.39 PM 2.5 1640.66 2.17 68.8 25.3 4.25 87.8 53.5 27.3 6.13 NH 4 590.82 0.57114.1 28.7 0.63 124.1 56.3 50.9 0.91 SO 2 590.63 1.40152.4 58.5 1.58170.0185.9164.7 2.15 HNO 3 590.72 1.94234.3 49.2 2.13247.0109.2 99.5 3.01 OMC 1380.55 1.61112.8 37.1 2.23127.2 97.4 70.3 3.49 EC 1360.54 0.02 80.0 -7.0 0.17128.6 58.6 - 6.6 0.29 Evaluation Summary

32 CMAQ  varies in its ability to simulated air concentrations of the nine species -correlations range from ~ 0.55 (EC, OMC) to ~ 0.90 (SO 4 ) -NME range from ~ 25% (O 3 ) to over 100% (HNO 3, SO 2 )  generally over-predicts -biases are positive (except NO 3, EC) and for some species large  performs better for O 3 and SO 4 than other species Evaluation Summary

33 Contacts: Brian K. Eder email: eder@hpcc.epa.gov

Download ppt "Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National."

Similar presentations

Analysis of CMAQ Performance and Grid-to- grid Variability Over 12-km and 4-km Spacing Domains within the Houston airshed Daiwen Kang Computer Science.

Analysis of CMAQ Performance and Grid-to- grid Variability Over 12-km and 4-km Spacing Domains within the Houston airshed Daiwen Kang Computer Science.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Changes in U.S. Regional-Scale Air.

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.

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.
Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.

Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.
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.

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.

COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.

Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Effects of Grid Resolution and Perturbations in Meteorology and Emissions on Air Quality Simulations Over the Greater New York City Region Christian Hogrefe.

Effects of Grid Resolution and Perturbations in Meteorology and Emissions on Air Quality Simulations Over the Greater New York City Region Christian Hogrefe.
An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,

An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Improving the Representation of Atmospheric Chemistry in WRF William R. Stockwell Department of Chemistry Howard University.

Improving the Representation of Atmospheric Chemistry in WRF William R. Stockwell Department of Chemistry Howard University.
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,
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,

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

Transitioning CMAQ for NWS Operational AQ Forecasting Jeff McQueen*, Pius Lee*, Marina Tsildulko*, G. DiMego*, B. Katz* R. Mathur,T. Otte, J. Pleim, J.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division, Applied Modeling Research Branch October 8, 2008.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division, Applied Modeling Research Branch October 8, 2008.
PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,

PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,
Calculating Statistics: Concentration Related Performance Goals James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel.

Calculating Statistics: Concentration Related Performance Goals James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel.
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.

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.
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.

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.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google