4-km AIRPACT vs 12
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