1 impact on ozone prediction at a fine grid resolution: an examination of nudging analysis and pbl...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Resolution: An Examination of Nudging
Analysis and PBL Schemes in Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological ModelMeteorological Model
Yunhee Kim, Joshua S. Fu, and Terry L. MillerYunhee Kim, Joshua S. Fu, and Terry L. Miller
University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering
2
OutlineOutline
• Background and ObjectiveBackground and Objective
• Model Configurations and DescriptionsModel Configurations and Descriptions
• Sensitivity to INTERPPX Sensitivity to INTERPPX
• Sensitivity to PBL Schemes and Analysis NudgingSensitivity to PBL Schemes and Analysis Nudging
• ConclusionsConclusions
3
SIPs (State Implementation Plans) for Nonattainment SIPs (State Implementation Plans) for Nonattainment AreasAreas
• Any area that does not meet
the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.
• Demonstrate the ozone
attainment in these
nonattainmnet areas by SIPs.
• In 1997, NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards)
for 8-hour Ozone of 85ppb
was set up.
4
Nonattainment Areas in East TennesseeNonattainment Areas in East Tennessee
In East Tennessee, 7 counties are nonattainment
for ozone
5
Continued.Continued.
• New NAAQS for 8-hr O3 was revised from 85 ppb to 75 ppb as May 27, 20081. (It will result in increased nonattainmnet areas in the United States)
• US EPA recommend that using 4km horizontal grid cells may be desirable for urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids.1
• However, studies have also shown that finer grid resolutions do not always give better performance because of the complexity in chemistry and meteorology. 2
• Generally, the meteorological model performance for temperature predicts well at finer horizontal grid resolution in terms of overall-wide statistics and area-specific statistics while wind speed tend to overpredict at most areas.3
• 1. US EPA, 2007 2. Cohan et al 2006; Zhang et al., 2006a,b; Wu et al., 2008 3. Cohan et al., 2006; Barna et al., 2000; Zhang et al.,2006a; Wu et al., 2008
6
ObjectiveObjective
• To provide the better model performance in complex terrain and improve daily maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations at finer grid resolutions for SIPs
7
MM5 Configurations and DescriptionsMM5 Configurations and Descriptions
• Horizontal Grid Resolution:Horizontal Grid Resolution:36-km/12-km/36-km/12-km/4-km4-km• Vertical Grid Resolution:Vertical Grid Resolution: 34 layers 34 layers • Simulation Period:Simulation Period: May 15– September 15, May 15– September 15,
2002 2002 • MM5 (v.3.7) Options:MM5 (v.3.7) Options:
– PBL: PX, Eta M-Y (Mellor-Yamada) PX, Eta M-Y (Mellor-Yamada) MRF (Medium Range Forecast)
– LSM:LSM: PX, NOAHPX, NOAH– Cumulus: KF2 (Kain and Fritsch) Cumulus: KF2 (Kain and Fritsch) – Moisture:Moisture: Mixed phaseMixed phase– Radiation:Radiation: RRTM (rapid radiative RRTM (rapid radiative
transfer model)transfer model)
8
CMAQ Configurations and Descriptions CMAQ Configurations and Descriptions
• Model Domain Model Domain Descriptions:Descriptions:
– Nestdown from Nestdown from VISTAS’s 12km VISTAS’s 12km
– 121 x 114 grids, 19 121 x 114 grids, 19 layerslayers
– CMAQ 4.5 with CBIV CMAQ 4.5 with CBIV mechanismmechanism
– Initial & Boundary Initial & Boundary Condition:Condition:
VISTAS 12-km obtained VISTAS 12-km obtained from VISTASfrom VISTAS
CON US 36-km
VISTAS 12-kmETN 4-km
9
Simulation DescriptionsSimulation Descriptions
• Descriptions::– Emissions:: Typical 2002 BaseG Emissions obtained from Typical 2002 BaseG Emissions obtained from
VISTASVISTAS– SMOKE2.1 usedSMOKE2.1 used– For Base case : Area, Nonroad, Mobile, Point, Fire For Base case : Area, Nonroad, Mobile, Point, Fire
and Biogenic emissionsand Biogenic emissions– For Sensitivity : Mobile, Point, and Biogenic For Sensitivity : Mobile, Point, and Biogenic
emissions to rerunemissions to rerun– INTERPPXINTERPPX for PX LSM for PX LSM– Analysis nudgingAnalysis nudging (PX and NOAH) (PX and NOAH)
10
MethodologyMethodology
• 1. Step – Test INTERPPX w/ and w/o on PX LSM
• 2. Step – Test PX and Noah LSM
• 3. Step – Test with Analysis nudging
3D FDDA + INTERPPX
3D & Surface FDDA +
INTERPPX
3D & Surface FDDA w/o
INTERPPX
PX Noah_Eta Noah_MRF
Analysis Nudging with 2.5, 4.5, 6.0 x10-4/sec for winds
11
1. Step - INTERPPX1. Step - INTERPPX
• 4-km INTERPPX Simulations4-km INTERPPX Simulations
• INTERPPX is a new preprocessor used to initialize soil moisture, temperature, and canopy moisture from a previous VISTAS 12-km MM5 run.
• 3DINT 3DFDDA w/INTERPPX• BDINT 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA
w/INTERPPX• BDPX 3DFDDA+ Surface FDDA w/o INTERPPX
SimulationSimulation FDDAFDDA INTERPPX INTERPPX OptionOption
3DINT3DINT 3D-3D-FDDAFDDA
O
BDINT3D &
Surface FDDA
O
BDPX3D &
Surface FDDA
X
12
Results from INTERPPXResults from INTERPPX
• 3D INT - 3DFDDA + INPERPPX • BDINT - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/ INTERPPX • BDPX - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/O INTERPPX
Valley Mountain
Bias WDR
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Time
WD
R (
deg
ree)
3DINT BDINT BDPX
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
m/s
3DINT BDINT BDPX
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
m/s
3DINT BDINT BDPX
3DINT BDINT BDPX m/sOVERALL 1.0 0.6 0.6 <=+-0.5VALLEY -0.2 0.0 -0.2 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 0.8 0.7 0.7 <=+-0.5
BenchmarkBias
Wind SpeedBias
13
Results from INTERPPXResults from INTERPPXValley
Mountain
• At valley, BDINT predicts well for wind speed. BDPX predicts well for temperature.
• At mountain, all of three overpredict temperature and wind speed.
• 3D INT - 3DFDDA + INPERPPX • BDINT - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/ INTERPPX • BDPX - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/O INTERPPX
Bias Temperature
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
K
3DINT BDINT BDPX
Bias Temperature
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
K
3DINT BDINT BDPX
Benchmark_Bias
3DINT BDINT BDPX KOVERALL 0.7 0.3 0.0 <=+-0.5VALLEY 0.5 0.4 -0.1 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 2.1 2.0 2.9 <=+-0.5
Bias
Temp
3DINT BDINT BDPX degOVERALL 6.5 5.9 5.8 <=+-10VALLEY -6.9 4.3 4.7 <=+-10MOUNTAIN 0.3 5.8 6.3 <=+-10
Benchmark_Bias
Wind DirectionBias
14
Time series and Statistics for OO33
Valley
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Max
8-h
r O
3 (p
pb)
OBS 3DINT BDINT BDPX
Mountain
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Max
8-h
r O
3 (p
pb)
OBS 3DINT BDINT BDPX
OVERALL VALLEY MOUNTAIN MNB (%) MNGE (%) MNB (%) MNGE (%) MNB (%) MNGE (%)
OBS 71.7 72.6 70.83DINT 60.0 62.1 57.9 -13.6 17.8 -11.9 16.8 -8.4 18.4BDINT 64.7 67.3 62.1 -6.4 17.1 -3.9 16.0 -8.8 18.6BDPX 63.9 66.1 61.7 -7.6 16.3 -5.9 16.4 -9.4 18.6
Daily Max 8-hr O3 (ppb) OVERALL VALLEY MOUNTAIN
BDINT performed better than BDPXSo BDINT was selected
• 3D INT - 3DFDDA + INPERPPX • BDINT - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/ INTERPPX • BDPX - 3DFDDA + Surface FDDA W/O INTERPPX
15
2. Step - Sensitivity to PBL2. Step - Sensitivity to PBL
4-km PBL Sensitivity Simulations4-km PBL Sensitivity Simulations
• Baseline: PXBaseline: PX
• PBL Sensitivity: N_E, N_MPBL Sensitivity: N_E, N_M
SimulationSimulation LSMLSM PBLPBL
PXPX PXPX PXPX
N_EN_E NOAHNOAH EtaEta
N_MN_M NOAHNOAH MRFMRF
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
m/s
PX N_E N_M
Valley
• PX– PX PBL + INTERPPX • N_E – Noah Eta PBL• N_M – Noah MRF PBL
Mountain
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5m
/s
PX N_E N_M
16
Sensitivity to PBLSensitivity to PBL Statistics for MeteorologyStatistics for Meteorology
Bias Wind Direction
-90-60-30
0306090
de
g
PX N_E N_M
Valley Mountain
Bias Temperature
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
K
PX N_E N_M
Bias Temperature
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8K
PX N_E N_M
PX N_E N_M degOVERALL 5.6 3.4 6.0 <=+-10VALLEY 4.7 5.4 9.3 <=+-10MOUNTAIN 5.5 6.3 7.4 <=+-10
Benchmark_Bias
Wind DirectionBias
PX N_E N_M m/sOVERALL 0.6 0.1 0.5 <=+-0.5VALLEY -0.2 -0.5 -0.1 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 0.7 0.3 0.6 <=+-0.5
Wind SpeedBias
Benchmark_Bias
PX N_E N_M K
OVERALL 0.3 0.6 1.0 <=+-0.5VALLEY 0.4 0.0 0.4 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 2.0 2.9 3.1 <=+-0.5
Benchmark_Bias
TempBias
• PX– PX PBL + INTERPPX • N_E – Noah Eta PBL• N_M – Noah MRF PBL
17
Sensitivity to PBLSensitivity to PBLSpatial & Temporal Distribution of Max 8-hr O3Spatial & Temporal Distribution of Max 8-hr O3
Valley
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
8/1
8/3
8/5
8/7
8/9
8/11
8/13
8/15
8/17
8/19
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/27
8/29
8/31
Max
8-h
r O
3 (p
pb
)
OBS PX N_E N_M
Mountain
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
8/1
8/3
8/5
8/7
8/9
8/11
8/13
8/15
8/17
8/19
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/27
8/29
8/31
Max
8-h
r O
3 (p
pb
)
OBS PX N_E N_M
18
2. Step -Summary2. Step -Summary
MNB(%) MNGE(%) MNB(%) MNGE(%) MNB(%) MNGE(%)PX -3.9 16.0 -8.8 18.6 -6.4 17.1N_E 5.2 22.0 -3.6 18.9 0.8 20.5N_M -2.9 17.6 -7.4 18.9 -5.2 18.2
Valley Mountain OVERALL
•At valley, Noah_MRF shows the lowest bias of wind speed and Noah_Eta predicts temperature well.
•At mountain area, Noah Eta alone predicts wind speed well but none of them predicts well for temperature.
•PX and N_M show good model performance at valley while N_E shows model performance well at mountain area.
• PX– PX PBL + INTERPPX • N_E – Noah Eta PBL• N_M – Noah MRF PBL
19
3. Step - Sensitivity to Analysis Nudging3. Step - Sensitivity to Analysis Nudging
• Analysis Nudging SimulationsAnalysis Nudging Simulations
**3D Analysis & Surface : nudging with winds, temp, and water mixing ratio3D Analysis & Surface : nudging with winds, temp, and water mixing ratio
Simulations winds Temperature mixing ratioa 2.5 2.5 0.1b 4.5 2.5 0.1c 6.0 2.5 0.1
Nudging Coefficients (*10-4 /sec)
Simulations PX N_E N_Ma O O Ob O O Oc O O O
20
Sensitivity to Analysis NudgingSensitivity to Analysis NudgingTime series and Statistics for MeteorologyTime series and Statistics for Meteorology
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
8/ 1
8/ 2
8/ 3
8/ 4
8/ 5
8/ 6
8/ 7
8/ 8
8/ 9 8
/10 8
/11 8
/12 8
/13 8
/14 8
/15 8
/16 8
/17 8
/18 8
/19 8
/20 8
/21 8
/22 8
/23 8
/24 8
/25 8
/26 8
/27 8
/28 8
/29 8
/30 8
/31
m/s
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c
Bias Windspeed
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
8/ 1
8/ 2
8/ 3
8/ 4
8/ 5
8/ 6
8/ 7
8/ 8
8/ 9 8
/10 8
/11 8
/12 8
/13 8
/14 8
/15 8
/16 8
/17 8
/18 8
/19 8
/20 8
/21 8
/22 8
/23 8
/24 8
/25 8
/26 8
/27 8
/28 8
/29 8
/30 8
/31
m/s
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c
Valley Mountain
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c m/sOVERALL 0.62 0.52 0.46 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.45 0.31 0.31 <=+-0.5VALLEY -0.18 -0.30 -0.35 -0.45 -0.52 -0.55 -0.10 -0.27 -0.23 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 0.71 0.65 0.58 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.62 0.55 0.57 <=+-0.5
Wind Speed Benchmark_Bias
Bias
PX_a:PX w/2.5E-4, PX_b:PX w/4.5E-4, PX_c:PX w/6.0E-4
N_E_a:Noah Eta w/2.5E-4, N_E_b:Noah Eta w/4.5E-4, N_E_c:Noah Eta w/6.0E-4
N_M_a:Noah MRF w/2.5E-4, N_M_b:Noah MRF w/4.5E-4, N_M_c:Noah MRF w/6.0E-4
21
Continued.Continued.
Bias Temperature
-4
1
6
8/ 1
8/ 2
8/ 3
8/ 4
8/ 5
8/ 6
8/ 7
8/ 8
8/ 9
8/1
0 8
/11 8
/12 8
/13 8
/14 8
/15 8
/16 8
/17 8
/18 8
/19 8
/20 8
/21 8
/22 8
/23 8
/24 8
/25 8
/26 8
/27 8
/28 8
/29 8
/30 8
/31
K
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c
Bias Temperature
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
K
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c
Valley Mountain
Benchmark_Bias
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c KOVERALL 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.56 0.63 0.69 0.98 1.03 0.91 <=+-0.5VALLEY 0.39 0.36 0.43 -0.03 0.01 0.07 0.41 0.47 0.12 <=+-0.5MOUNTAIN 2.03 2.01 1.98 2.89 2.89 2.87 3.12 3.11 3.00 <=+-0.5
Bias
Temperature
Benchmark_Bias
PX_a PX_b PX_c N_E_a N_E_b N_E_c N_M_a N_M_b N_M_c degOVERALL 5.6 5.2 5.0 3.4 3.3 3.8 6.0 5.0 5.0 <=+-10VALLEY 4.7 8.5 4.3 5.4 5.4 6.2 9.3 7.5 5.5 <=+-10MOUNTAIN 5.5 5.9 7.1 6.3 6.4 5.6 7.4 6.7 3.0 <=+-10
Wind Direction
Bias
PX_a:PX w/2.5E-4, PX_b:PX w/4.5E-4, PX_c:PX w/6.0E-4
N_E_a:Noah Eta w/2.5E-4, N_E_b:Noah Eta w/4.5E-4, N_E_c:Noah Eta w/6.0E-4
N_M_a:Noah MRF w/2.5E-4, N_M_b:Noah MRF w/4.5E-4, N_M_c:Noah MRF w/6.0E-4
22
Sensitivity to Analysis NudgingSensitivity to Analysis NudgingSpatial Distribution of Max 8-hr OSpatial Distribution of Max 8-hr O33
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
20 -13
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
10 -10
23
Sensitivity to Analysis NudgingSensitivity to Analysis NudgingSpatial Distribution of Max 8-hr OSpatial Distribution of Max 8-hr O33
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
31 -28
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
18 -17
24
Continued.
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
21 -15
Daily Max 8-hr (ppb)MAX DIFF MIN DIFF
12 -12
25
Sensitivity to Analysis NudgingSensitivity to Analysis NudgingStatistics for Max 8-hr O3Statistics for Max 8-hr O3
OVERALL Valley Mountain OVERALL Valley Mountain
OBS 71.7 72.6 70.8PX_a 64.7 67.3 62.1 7.0 5.3 8.8PX_b 65.0 67.6 62.4 6.7 5.0 8.4PX_c 65.8 67.9 63.8 5.9 4.7 7.1N_E_a 69.0 72.7 65.3 2.7 -0.1 5.5N_E_b 69.3 72.4 66.2 2.4 0.1 4.7N_E_c 70.8 74.2 67.5 0.9 -1.6 3.3N_M_a 65.2 67.7 62.8 6.5 4.9 8.1N_M_b 60.8 62.7 58.9 10.9 9.9 11.9N_M_c 64.3 65.0 63.6 7.4 7.6 7.312km 65.1 68.2 62.0 6.6 4.3 8.8
Daily Max 8-hr O3 (ppb) Mean Bias (ppb)
Sensitivity MNB(%) MNGE(%) MNB(%) MNGE(%) MNB(%) MNGE(%)
PX_a -3.9 16.0 -8.8 18.6 -6.4 17.1 <=+-15% <= 35 %PX_b -3.8 15.6 -8.4 18.4 -6.1 17.0 <=+-15% <= 35 %PX_c -3.3 15.0 -6.5 18.1 -4.9 16.5 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_E_a 5.2 22.0 -3.6 18.9 0.8 20.5 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_E_b 4.9 22.4 -1.6 20.1 1.7 21.3 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_E_c 7.4 23.4 0.2 19.2 3.8 21.3 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_M_a -2.9 17.6 -7.4 18.9 -5.2 18.2 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_M_b -10.2 19.0 -12.9 22.4 -4.2 18.1 <=+-15% <= 35 %N_M_c -6.8 18.9 -5.9 19.6 -6.4 19.2 <=+-15% <= 35 %12km -3.6 13.4 -9.6 18.5 -6.6 15.9 <=+-15% <= 35 %
Benchmark MNB (%)
Benchmark MNGE (%)
Valley Mountain OVERALL
Noah-Eta w/ 6.0E-4/sec
PX_a:PX w/2.5E-4, PX_b:PX w/4.5E-4, PX_c:PX w/6.0E-4
N_E_a:Noah Eta w/2.5E-4, N_E_b:Noah Eta w/4.5E-4, N_E_c:Noah Eta w/6.0E-4
N_M_a:Noah MRF w/2.5E-4, N_M_b:Noah MRF w/4.5E-4, N_M_c:Noah MRF w/6.0E-4
26
ConclusionsConclusions• Generally, INTERPPX gives slightly better model performance for
meteorology and O3 simulation.• PX model performs well for temperature at most sites but wind speed.• NOAH_Eta scheme performs well for wind speed at mountain area but
NOAH_MRF scheme performs well for wind speed at valley site.• Statistically, NOAH_Eta with Nudging 6.0x10-4/sec scheme shows better
model performance at mountain area due to the wind speed, NOAH_MRF with Nudging 2.5x10-4 /sec scheme shows better model performance at valley site.
• Applying for analysis nudging in MM5 gives better wind speed resulting in good model performance in complex terrain at a fine grid (4-km) resolution.
• Wind speed is a key parameter to predict better max 8-hr O3 for SIPs at a fine grid resolution.
• Overall, NOAH LSM Model shows better model performance at a fine (4km) grid resolution in the complex terrain.
• Using 4-km grid resolution for SIPs might be desirable than 12-km grid resolution.
27
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
• Observed Data for Great Smoky Mountain National Park:Observed Data for Great Smoky Mountain National Park:Jim Renfro, Air Quality Program Manager
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Resource Management & Science Division
• Obtained Data for ICs and BCs and Meteorological Data for VISTAS 12-Obtained Data for ICs and BCs and Meteorological Data for VISTAS 12-km: km:
VISTAS (Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast)
• Funding:Funding:TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation)