wrap 2002 visibility modeling: emission, meteorology inputs and cmaq performance evaluation
DESCRIPTION
WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Emission, Meteorology Inputs and CMAQ Performance Evaluation. Gail Tonnesen, Bo Wang, Chao-Jung Chien, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary University of California, Riverside Zac Adelman, Andy Holland University of North Carolina Ralph Morris et al. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling:Emission, Meteorology Inputs andCMAQ Performance Evaluation
Gail Tonnesen, Bo Wang, Chao-Jung Chien, Zion Wang, Mohammad OmaryUniversity of California, Riverside
Zac Adelman, Andy HollandUniversity of North Carolina
Ralph Morris et al.ENVIRON Corporation Int., Novato, CA
WRAP Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver, CO July 22, 2004
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Summary of RMC 2002 Modeling
• Annual MM5 Simulations run at the RMC
• Emissions processed with SMOKE– Preliminary 2002 Scenario C used here.
• CMAQ version 4.3 (released October 2003)
• Data summaries, QA, results are posted on the RMC web page:
www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
MM5 Modeling Domain (36 & 12 km)
• National RPO grid– Lambert conic Projection– Center: -97o, 40o
– True lat: 33o, 45o
• MM5 domain– 36 km: (165, 129, 34)
– 12 km: (220, 199, 34)
• 24-category USGS data– 36 km: 10 min. (~19 km)
– 12 km: 5 min. (~9 km)
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
MM5 Physics
Physics Option Configuration Configure.user
Microphysics Reisner2 (with graupel) IMPHYS = 7
Cumulus Scheme Kain-Fritsch ICUPA = 6
PBL Pleim-Chang (ACM) IBLTYP = 7
Radiation RRTM FRAD = 4
Land-surface model Pleim-Xiu ISOIL = 3
Shallow Convection No ISHALLO = 0
Snow Cover Effect Simple snow model ISNOW = 2
Thermal Roughness Garrat IZ0TOPT = 1
Varying SST Yes ISSTVAR = 1
Time step 90 seconds (PX uses an internal timestep of 40 seconds)
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Subdomains for 36/12-km Model Evaluation
1 = Pacific NW
2 = SW
3 = North
4 = Desert SW
5 = CenrapN
6 = CenrapS
7 = Great Lakes
8 = Ohio Valley
9 = SE
10 = NE
11 = MidAtlantic
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Evaluation Review
• Evaluation Methodology– Synoptic Evaluation– Statistical Evaluation using METSTAT and surface data
• WS, WD, T, RH– Evaluation against upper-air obs
• Statistics:– Absolute Bias and Error, RMSE, IOA (Index of Agreement)
• Evaluation Datasets:– NCAR dataset ds472 airport surface met observations– Twice-Daily Upper-Air Profile Obs (~120 in US)
• Temperature• Moisture
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
METSTAT Evaluation Package
• Statistics:– Absolute Bias and Error, RMSE, IOA
• Daily and, where appropriate, hourly evaluation• Statistical Performance Benchmarks
– Based on an analysis of > 30 MM5 and RAMS runs – Not meant as a pass/fail test, but to put modeling results
into perspective Wind Speed Wind Direction Temperature Humidity RMSE 2 m/s Mean Bias 0.5m/s 10 0.5K 1g/kg Index of Agreement 0.6 0.8 0.6 Gross Error 30 2K 2g/kg
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Evaluation of 36-km WRAP MM5 Results
• Model performed reasonably well for eastern subdomains, but not the west (WRAP region)– General cool moist bias in Western US– Difficulty with resolving Western US orography?
• May get better performance with higher resolution– Pleim-Xiu scheme optimized more for eastern US?
• More optimization needed for desert and rocky ground?
• MM5 performs better in winter than in summer– Weaker forcing in summer
• July 2002 Desert SW subdomain exhibits low temperature and high humidity bias
2002 MM5 Model Evaluation 12 vs. 36 km Results Chris Emery, Yiqin Jia, Sue Kemball-Cook, and Ralph Morris (ENVIRON International Corporation) & Zion Wang (UCR CE-CERT), Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) National RPO Meeting, May 25, 2004
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 36km/12km July Wind Performance Comparison
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Wind Speed RMSE (m/s)
Win
d D
irec
tio
n E
rro
r (d
egre
es)
Benchmark 12 km Subdomains MM5/RAMS Runs 36 km Subdomains
DesertSW
North
SWPacNW
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 36km/12km July Temperature Performance Comparison
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Temperature Bias (K)
Tem
ep
ratu
re E
rro
r (K
)
Benchmark 12 km Subdomain MM5/RAMS Runs 36 km Subdomains
DesertSW
SW
North
PacNW
Desert SW
SWNorth
PacNW
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 36km/12km July Humidity Performance Comparison
0
1
2
3
4
5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Humidity Bias (g/kg)
Hu
mid
ity
Err
or
(g/k
g)
Benchmark 12km Subdomains MM5/RAMS Runs 36 km Subdomains
DesertSW
NorthSWPacNW
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
MM5 Implications for AoH
• The RMC is continuing to test alternative MM5 configurations – to be completed at the end of 2004.
• Expect some reduction in bias &error in the WRAP states, however even in the best case we will have error & bias in MM5 that must be considered when using CMAQ for source attribution.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Emissions Inventory Summary
• Preliminary 2002 Scenario C based on the 1996 NEI, grown to 2002, with many updates by WRAP contractors and other RPOs.
• Processed for CMAQ using SMOKE.
• Extensive QA plots on the web page– Both SMOKE QA and post-SMOKE QA
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Emissions Sources by Category & RPO
WRAP CENRAP VISTAS LADCO MANE-VU MexicoArea Pecahn - v1 Pechan - v1 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) BRAVO
Point Pecahn - v1 Pecahn - v1 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) BRAVO
Paved Road Dust ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON BRAVO
Seasonal, Interpolation between 1996 and 2018Unpaved Road Dust ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON ENVIRON BRAVO
Seasonal, Interpolation between 1996 and 2018On Road Mobile ENVIRON 1999 NEI 96 NEI (grown) 1999 NEI 1999 NEI BRAVO
VMT VMT VMT VMTOff Road Mobile ENVIRON 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) 96 NEI (grown) BRAVO
Biogenic VISTAS VISTAS VISTAS VISTAS VISTAS VISTAS
Ag Fires Air Sci. (2018 base) Non included in the Area included in the Area included in the Area Non
Rx Fires Air Sci. (2002) Non included in the Area included in the Area included in the Area Non
Wild Fires Air Sci. (2002) Non Non Non Non Non
SourceRegion
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 2002 Annual NOx Emissions
AreaBiogenicOn RoadNon RoadRoad DustPointRx FireAg FireWildfireOffshore
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
2002 WRAP NOx Emissions by Source & State
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
Ariz
ona
Cal
iforn
ia
Colo
rado
Idah
o
Monta
na
Nev
ada
New
Mex
ico
North
Dak
ota
Ore
gon
South
Dak
ota
Uta
h
Was
hingto
n
Wyo
min
g
[To
ns/
Yr]
Ag Fire
Rx Fire
Wildfire
Area
Point
Nonroad
Onroad
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
WRAP 2002 Annual SO2 Emissions
AreaBiogenicOn RoadNon RoadRoad DustPointRx FireAg FireWildfireOffshore
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
2002 WRAP SO2 Emissions by Source & State
0.00E+00
5.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.50E+05
2.00E+05
2.50E+05
3.00E+05
Ariz
ona
Cal
iforn
ia
Colo
rado
Idah
o
Monta
na
Nev
ada
New
Mex
ico
North
Dak
ota
Ore
gon
South
Dak
ota
Uta
h
Was
hingto
n
Wyo
min
g
[To
ns
/Yr]
Onroad
Ag Fire
Rx Fire
Wildfire
Area
Nonroad
Point
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
2002 WRAP NH3 Emissions by Source Category
0.00E+00
5.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.50E+05
2.00E+05
2.50E+05
Ariz
ona
Cal
iforn
ia
Colo
rado
Idah
o
Monta
na
Nev
ada
New
Mex
ico
North
Dak
ota
Ore
gon
South
Dak
ota
Uta
h
Was
hingto
n
Wyo
min
g
To
ns
/Yr
Nonroad
Ag Fire
Rx Fire
Point
Onroad
Wildfire
Area
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Emissions Summary
• Preliminary 2002 EI Used here.
• Updates for final 2002 EI will include:– New EI data from other RPOs and Canada– 2002 NEI to replace grown 1996 NEI– Reprocess in SMOKE with final MM5– All final inputs ready now except Canada & MM5
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
CMAQ Simulations
• CMAQ v4.3• 36-km grid,
112x148x19• Annual Run• CB4 chemistry• Evaluated using:
IMPROVE, CASTNet, NADP, STN, AIR/AQS
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
PM Performance Criteria
• Guidance from EPA not yet ready:– Difficult to assert that model is adequate.– Therefore, we use a variety of ad hoc performance
goals and benchmarks to display CMAQ results.
• We completed a variety of analyses:– Compute over 20 performance metrics– Scatter-plots & time-series plots– Soccer plots– Bugle plots
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Goal of Model Evaluation
• We completed a variety of analyses:– Compute over 20 performance metrics– Scatter-plots & time-series plots– Soccer plots– Bugle plots
• Goal is to decide whether we have enough confidence to use the model for AoH:– Is this a valid application of the model?
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Soccer Goal Plots
• Plot error as as a function of bias.• Ad hoc performance goal:
– 15% bias, 35% error based on O3 modeling goals.– Larger error & bias are observed among different
PM data methods and monitoring networks.
• Performance benchmark:– 30% bias, 70% error (2x performance goals)– PM models can achieve this level in many cases.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Annual CMAQ vs IMPROVE
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Spring Summer
Fall Winter
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Annual CMAQ vs CASTNet
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Spring Summer
Fall Winter
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Annual CMAQ vs STN
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Spring Summer
Fall Winter
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Annual CMAQ vs NADP
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Spring Summer
Fall Winter
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Performance Goals and Criteria- Proposed by Jim Boylan
• Based on FE and FB calculations
• Vary as a function of species concentrations– Goals: FE +50% and FB ±30%
– Criteria: FE +75% and FB ±60%
– Less abundant species should have less stringent performance goals and criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Performance Goals and Criteria- Proposed by Jim Boylan
• PM Performance Goals
• Proposed PM Performance Criteria
501503/75.0
)(5.0
mg
CC mo
eFE
301703/5.0
)(5.0
mg
CC mo
eFB
751253/75.0
)(5.0
mg
CC mo
eFE
601403/5.0
)(5.0
mg
CC mo
eFB
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly SO4 Fractional Bias
SO4
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
nal
Bia
s (%
)
IMPROVE
CASTNet
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly SO4 Fractional Error
SO4
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l E
rro
r (%
)
IMPROVE
CASTNet
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly NO3 Fractional Bias
NO3
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l B
ias
(%
)
IMPROVE
CASTNet
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly NO3 Fractional Error
NO3
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
cti
on
al E
rro
r (%
)
IMPROVE
CASTNet
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly NH4 Fractional Bias
NH4
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l B
ias
(%
)
CASTNet
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly NH4 Fractional Error
NH4
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l E
rro
r (%
)
CASTNet
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly OC Fractional Bias
OC
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
nal
Bia
s (%
)
IMPROVE
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly OC Fractional Error
OC
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
cti
on
al E
rro
r (%
)
IMPROVE
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly EC Fractional Bias
EC
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l B
ias
(%
)
IMPROVE
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly EC Fractional Error
EC
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
cti
on
al E
rro
r (%
)
IMPROVE
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly PM25 Fractional Bias
PM25
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 8 16 24 32 40
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
ctio
na
l B
ias
(%
)
IMPROVE
STN
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Monthly PM25 Fractional Error
PM25
0
50
100
150
200
0 8 16 24 32 40
Average Concentration (ug/m3)
Fra
cti
on
al E
rro
r (%
)
IMPROVE
STN
Goal
Criteria
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
CMAQ & EI Versions
• TSSA results are run in CMAQ v4.4 with emissions version Preliminary 2002 C
• Performance evaluation used CMAQ 4.3
• Previous CMAQ runs used CMAQ 4.3 with Preliminary 2002 B emissions (no fires)
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
CMAQ v4.3 & v4.4 versus IMPROVE
July
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
CMAQ Ozone Performance
• CMAQ v4.3 Mean fractional bias (no filter)January +25% MFBJuly –20% mean MFB
• Slightly worse January O3 performance in v4.4
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
CMAQ Emissions B & C versus IMPROVE
Summer
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Issues for AoH
• Is this set of Emissions/MM5/CMAQ adequate for studying AoH?
• Analysis of CMAQ performance on best & worst days still in progress: – However, we expect CMAQ will tend to over
predict lows & under predict highs.– Should we use CMAQ results unpaired in time?
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04
Options for future work
• Continue CMAQ source apportionment with current data sets.
• Wait for new MM5 and emissions.
• Investigate other CMAQ configurations:– Unlikely to see large improvements