1 / 44

CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results

CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results. Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October 31, 2006 ( boo! ). Today’s Presentation. Describe initial CAMx simulations Model configuration Performance evaluation metrics Performance for PM and light extinction

irina
Download Presentation

CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CRGAQS:Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October 31, 2006 (boo!)

  2. Today’s Presentation • Describe initial CAMx simulations • Model configuration • Performance evaluation metrics • Performance for PM and light extinction • Next Steps

  3. Model Configuration

  4. Model Configuration • CAMx version 4.40 • “Run 1” configuration • Maximize model speed • Mechanism 4 – CF (static 2-mode PM chemistry) • Bott advection solver • No PiG • OMP parallel processing on Linux quad-CPU • O’Brien Kv profile with 0.1 m2/s minimum • 10-day model spin-up period • 36-km grid only first 8 days • 36/12-km grid last 2 days

  5. Model Configuration • Episodes • August 10-22, 2004 • Meteorology from MM5 Run 6, 36/12-km grids • Flexi-nesting to the 4-km grid • November 4-18, 2004 • Meteorology from MM5 Run 3, all grids • Identified issues • Small temporal profile problem for fires • No on-road vehicle ammonia emissions in 4-km grid

  6. Performance Evaluation • Review spatial plots • Review statistical performance • Species • Individual PM species • Total PM2.5 and PM10 • Light scattering/extinction • Monitors • IMPROVE, Gorge sites, FRM/STN • Focus on sites along Gorge

  7. Performance Evaluation • Metrics • Fractional bias and gross error • Regression and correlation • Need to develop time series of scattering and extinction

  8. Performance Evaluation

  9. August 14, noon Pristine Performance Evaluation

  10. Performance Evaluation

  11. Performance Evaluation

  12. Statistics – IMPROVE August NO3 August SO4

  13. Statistics – IMPROVE August NH4 August OC

  14. Statistics – IMPROVE August EC August Primary Fine

  15. Statistics – IMPROVE August Primary Coarse August Total PM2.5

  16. Statistics – IMPROVE August Total PM10 August Bext

  17. Statistics – Gorge August NO3 August SO4

  18. Statistics – Gorge August NH4 August OC

  19. Statistics – Gorge August EC August Bscat

  20. Statistics – STN August NO3 August SO4

  21. Statistics – Gorge August NH4 August OC

  22. Statistics – Gorge August EC August FRM PM2.5

  23. Initial August Modeling • NO3, SO4, and NH4 were mostly under predicted • CAMx predictions higher at Gorge sites later in episode, but data were not available • More NH3 may increase NO3 and NH4 • OC was mostly over predicted at IMPROVE and Gorge sites • Driven by fires

  24. Initial August Modeling • EC was over predicted at IMPROVE but under predicted at Gorge sites • Reasons not clear – is Gorge EC backed out from aetholometer readings? • Total PM2.5 looks good • Balance of component over and under predictions • CM and PM10 were mostly under predicted at IMPROVE site

  25. Initial August Modeling • Reconstructed scattering and extinction look good • Due to good PM2.5 predictions and dry conditions • Contribution from under predicted hygroscopic salts just about balance contribution from over predicted carbon • CM doesn’t play a large role in visibility

  26. November 10, noon Pristine Performance Evaluation

  27. Performance Evaluation

  28. Performance Evaluation

  29. Statistics – IMPROVE November NO3 November SO4

  30. Statistics – IMPROVE November NH4 November OC

  31. Statistics – IMPROVE November EC November Primary Fine

  32. Statistics – IMPROVE November Primary Coarse November Total PM2.5

  33. Statistics – IMPROVE November Total PM10 November Bext

  34. Statistics – Gorge November NO3 November SO4

  35. Statistics – Gorge November NH4 November OC

  36. Statistics – Gorge November EC November Bscat

  37. Statistics – STN November NO3 November SO4

  38. Statistics – Gorge November NH4 November OC

  39. Statistics – Gorge November EC November FRM PM2.5

  40. Initial November Modeling • More NO3 and SO4 was observed and predicted than in the August episode. • OC and PM2.5 were much lower over domain than in August since wildfire season was over

  41. Initial November Modeling • SO4 performed well at IMPROVE sites, but was under predicted at the GORGE and STN sites • NO3 performance was scattered • NH4 was mostly under predicted • OC and EC performance OK, but there were some over prediction outliers

  42. Initial November Modeling • Primary fine and coarse (soil) was over predicted at all IMPROVE sites on all dates • Fine PM emissions may not reflect squelching effect of recent rains • Reconstructed total PM2.5 and PM10 slightly over predicted • Driven by carbon and primary over predictions

  43. Initial November Modeling • Extinction at IMPROVE sites was generally too low, while scattering at Gorge sites exhibits little skill • Under predicted salts are not contributing sufficient scattering • More NH3 might not help • Lack of modeled fog probably is not generating enough sulfates and nitrates

  44. Moving Forward • Sensitivity/Diagnostic runs • Revised emissions (fix identified problems) • Kv sensitivity • CMAQ approach • Alternative minimum Kz • Met sensitivity for August? (use Run 3) • Increase NH3 emissions • Reduce primary fine/coarse emissions in November

More Related