4-km AIRPACT vs 12

Comments

Transcription

4-km AIRPACT vs 12
Outline
• 4-km AIRPACT (AIRPACT4) vs 12-km AIRPACT
(AIRPACT3) for a summertime case
• Incorporating WEPS into AIRPACT3
• Using CALIPSO and MODIS satellite products
to evaluate AIRPACT3
• Impact of climate change on fire emissions
4-km vs 12-km AIRPACT:
A Summertime Case
Serena Chung, Joe Vaughan, Farren Herron-Thorpe,
Rodrigo Gonzales Abraham, Jennifer Hinds,
and Brian Lamb
NW-AIRQUEST Meeting
October, 6, 2011
New 4-km Domain
New
4-km
North-South Borders
Old 12-km Domain
Old
12-km
North-South Borders
AIRPACT-4 vs AIRPACT-3 Terrain Height
4-km Domain
4-km
North-South
Borders
12-km Domain
12-km
North-South Borders
AIRPACT-4 vs AIRPACT-3
AIRPACT-3
95x95 12-km grid cells
21 layers
v3.3
v2.1 (LAYPOINT v2.4)
AIRPACT-4
Grid cells
285x258 4-km grid cells
Vertical Layers
21 layers
MCIP
v3.6
SMOKE
v2.7
v4.7.1 updated according
CMAQ
v4.6
to Carlton et al, ES&T
2010.
Mass adjustment (CMAQ) denrate
yamo
2005 from Ecology, IDEQ,
2007 from Ecology, IDEQ,
Anthropogenic Emissions
ODEQ
ODEQ
Fire Emissions
None
None
Biogenic Emissions
BEIS-3
MEGAN v2.1
8 processors on breezy
96 processor on aeolus
CMAQ run time
2.5-30 hours for 24-hour
3.5 hours for 64-hour run
run
System Wall Clock Time 8 hours
TBD
Storage Requirement for 24-hour Run
Emission
1.1 GB
891 MB
MCIP
428 MB
3.6 GB
CMAQ
2 GB
33 GB
O3
∆O3
PM2.5
∆PM2.5
Aug 16, 2010 @ 11 pm
Aug 16, 2010 @ noon
O3
∆O3
Aug 16, 2010 @ 11 pm
Aug 16, 2010 @ noon
PM2.5
∆PM2.5
Comparison to Three AIRNow Sites
• Seattle – Beacon Hill
• Enumclaw Mud Mt
• Craters of the Moon
Seattle - Beacon Hill
Enumclaw Mud Mt
Craters of the Moon
VOC/NOx Emissions
Seattle – Beacon Hill
Enumclaw Mud Mt
Craters of the Moon
Ozone Concentrations
PM Emissions
PM2.5 Concentrations
Summary of AIRPACT4 vs AIRPACT3
• AIRPACT4 VOC/NOx emissions tend to be higher in urban
areas
• Ozone
• Higher O3 concentrations in Beacon Hill and Enumclaw
are likely associated with higher VOC and NOx emissions
• Different trend than the Feb 10-13, 2010 wintertime
case.
• AIRPACT4 PM emission rate is much lower at Enumclaw
• AIRPACT4 PM2.5 concentrations tend to be lower
• Comparison with other AIRNow sites:
http://www.cereo.wsu.edu/AP4_2011feb/ap4_performance.aspx
http://www.cereo.wsu.edu/AP3_2010aug14/ap3_performance.aspx
Next Steps for AIRPACT4
• Resolve run-time being too long
• Automate 4-km runs
– Change from WRF 00Z to WRF 12Z results
• Design web page
• Incorporate SMARTFIRE
• Update to MOVES
Updates on
Incorporating the Wind Erosion Prediction System
(WEPS) into a Regional Air Quality Modeling
System
Serena Chung1, Jincheng Gao2, Larry Wagner3, Fred Fox3, Brian Lamb1,
Joe Vaughan1, and Timothy VanReken1
1Washington
State University
2Kansas State University
3USDA-ARS Engineering and Wind Erosion Unit
Understimation by WEPS/EROSION
• Previously for the Aug 26, 2010 episode
– Full WEPS + CMAQ simulation for resulted in underestimation of PM10
concentrations by as much as 3 orders of magnitude.
– EROSION + CMAQ results assuming bare and very dry surface soil
match PM10 observations only after tweeking aerodynamic roughness
to unreasonable values
• A Major Reason
– The minimum bare-soil static threshold friction velocity allowable in
WEPS is ~ 0.5 m/s based on measurements performed for soils in the
Midwest
– Measurements by Brenton Sharrat (WSU) indicate te the value should
be ~0.2 m/s
August 26, 2010 Event
with u*t,bare,static=0.2 m/s
Next Steps for WEPS
• Modify parameterization for u*t,static whensurface is
covered by biomass using data from Brenton Sharratt
• Extend the full WRF-WEPS-CMAQ framework to
Oregon.
• Improve the computational efficiency of and
parallize the full WEPS model in order to
implement AIRPACT-WEPS as a forecast tool.
• Currently 24-hour simulations take ~ 30 hours to run.
Use of Satellite Products to Evaluate
and Improve AIRPACT
Matthew Woelfle1, Farren Herron-Thorpe2,
and Joe Vaughan2
1North
Carolina State University
2 Washington State University
Objectives
• Use MODIS AOD to determine the horizontal
extent of aerosols from wildfires
• Develop system to properly compare modeled
aerosol vertical profiles with the
CALIOP/CALIPSO aerosol subtype
categories.
Wildfire Impact on Ozone
Wildfire Impact on NO2
OMI NO2 VCD
AIRPACT3 NO2 VCD
Limitations of the
Analysis
• Aerosol chemical composistion are not
resolved from space.
• CALIOP retrievals have very poor
horizontal spatial coverage
Aerosol Optical Depth
MODIS
AIRPACT3
July 16th, 2008 (~2 p.m.)
AIRPACT Vertical Feauture Mask (VFM)
Decision Tree Algorithm
CALIPSO Overpass &
AIRPACT3 Domain
CALIPSO VFM and aerosol distributions,
AIRPACT VFM derived from decision-tree algorithm,
and along-track MODIS AOD
Conclusions
• CALIPSO typically retrieves less aerosol than what is
modeled for both fires and urban areas. This is to be
somewhat expected as space-based Lidar cannot
penetrate to the surface.
• Wildfires are too persistent with the older BlueSky
framework due to infrequent updates of the ICS-209
ground reports. This agrees with previous NO2 work.
Future Plans
• Incorporate the BlueSky SmartFire system (includes MODIS
hot spot detection) to better estimate wildfire emissions and
redo the analysis.
Impact of Climate Change on Air
Quality due to Fires
Rodrigo Gonzales Abraham1, Jeremay Avise1,2, Serena Chung1 , Brian Lamb1,
Natasha Stavros3, Tara Strand4, Don McKenzie4, Sim Larkin4,
Yongxin Zhang3,5, and Eric Salathe3
1Washington
State University
2California Air Resources Board
3University of Washington
4USDA Forest Services
5National Center for Atmospehric Research
Area Burned from
Fire Scenario Builder (FSB)
Five Years in Each Decade
Area Burned from FSB
Five Years in Each Decade
CO2 Emissions from FSB and BlueSky
Current Decade
Future Decade
Future Work on Climate Change and Fire
• Compare FSB current decade results with
historical fire records to see if FSB
captures the distribution of area burned
and fire emissions
• Evaluate the air-quality impact (ozone and
PM2.5) of fires
For historical fires
In the context of climate change

Similar documents