1 / 20

Jerry Gorline , NWS/OST/MDL Meteorological Development Laboratory

Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, Urban vs. Rural and Other Comparisons Jerry Gorline and Jeff McQueen. Jerry Gorline , NWS/OST/MDL Meteorological Development Laboratory NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland Jeff McQueen, NWS/NCEP

leyna
Download Presentation

Jerry Gorline , NWS/OST/MDL Meteorological Development Laboratory

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. Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, Urban vs. Rural and Other ComparisonsJerry Gorline and Jeff McQueen • Jerry Gorline, NWS/OST/MDL Meteorological Development Laboratory NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland • Jeff McQueen, NWS/NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction NOAA, Camp Springs, Maryland

  2. The NAM driven Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model • OZONE, 1200 UTC cycle 48-h experimental, 8-h (daily max) CB05 chemical mechanism • AEROSOLS, 0600 UTC cycle 48-h developmental, 1-h(daily max) CB05, AERO-4 aerosol module

  3. Performance of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability, comparisons:urban vs. rurallow vs. high elevation (>250 m)coastal vs. inland (NE ozone only) EPA provided urban/rural classifications and elevation information over CONUS observing sites: ozone: 1,211 aerosols: 716 urban areas shape file from U.S. Census note: these results are preliminary

  4. 2x2 contingency definitions • FC = (a + d)/(a + b + c + d) • TS = a /(a + b + c) Thresholds Used: • POD = a/(a + c) Ozone: 76 ppb • FAR = b/(a + b) Aerosols: 35 ug/m3

  5. Number of observed values higher than 76 ppb threshold, 1200 UTC experimental8-h ozone, by region, Jun 15 – Aug 31

  6. 500 mb height weather map July 21, 2011 T.S. Bret 5880 m Strong ridge in eastern U.S. very warm/moist air

  7. Daily max, 8-h ozone, July 21, 20111200 UTC experimental FC=0.755 TS=0.186 POD=0.810 FAR=0.805 CASES: 84 predicted in dark blue observed as red dots

  8. Daily max, 8-h ozone, July 22, 20111200 UTC experimental FC=0.823 TS=0.265 POD=0.776 FAR=0.713 CASES: 98 predicted in dark blue observed as red dots

  9. Daily max 8-h ozone, July 17-24, 2011urban (red) vs. rural (blue) sites urban FC=0.827 TS=0.141 POD=0.966 FAR=0.858 rural FC=0.843 TS=0.191 POD=0.865 FAR=0.803

  10. Daily max 8-h ozone, July 17-24, 2011high elev (red) vs. low elev (blue) sites high elev > 250 m FC=0.780 TS=0.152 POD=0.773 FAR=0.841 low elev 0 m FC=0.833 TS=0.150 POD=0.888 FAR=0.847

  11. Daily max 8-h ozone, July 17-24, 2011inland (red) vs. coastal (green) sites inland FC=0.780 TS=0.152 POD=0.773 FAR=0.841 coastal FC=0.747 TS=0.351 POD=0.935 FAR=0.640 Blue: urban areas shape file from U.S. Census

  12. Threat Score vs. # observationsdaily max, 8-h ozone, CONUSsummer 2010 (red) 2011 (blue) 8-h ozone better performance on active days

  13. Daily max 1-h aerosols, July 17-24, 2011urban (red) vs. rural (blue) sites Note: no smoke emissions urban FC=0.817 TS=0.133 POD=0.164 FAR=0.586 rural FC=0.843 TS=0.145 POD=0.168 FAR=0.485

  14. Daily max 1-h aerosols, July 17-24, 2011high elev (red) vs. low elev (blue) sites high elev > 250 m FC=0.793 TS=0.080 POD=0.096 FAR=0.667 low elev 0 m FC=0.813 TS=0.129 POD=0.162 FAR=0.612

  15. Regional monthly bias of 1-h aerosolsJan 2009 to Aug 2011, 35 ug/m3 seasonal change in bias summer under-prediction Seasonal change in bias summer under-prediction

  16. Daily max 8-h ozone vs. elevationJuly 17-24, 2011, Eastern U.S.predictions (red) vs. observations (green) low elev 0 m FC=0.833 TS=0.150 POD=0.888 FAR=0.847 ozone: over-prediction during the summer high elev > 250 m FC=0.822 TS=0.165 POD=0.917 FAR=0.832

  17. Daily max 1-h aerosols vs. elevationJuly 17-24, 2011, Eastern U.S.predictions (red) vs. observations (green) low elev 0 m FC=0.813 TS=0.129 POD=0.162 FAR=0.612 aerosols: under-prediction during the summer high elev > 250 m FC=0.793 TS=0.080 POD=0.096 FAR=0.667

  18. Summary Ozone: higher TS on coast compared to inland (NE), low elevation: over-prediction in the summer. Aerosols: higher TS at low elevation, lower POD than w/ ozone, under-prediction in the summer.

  19. Suggestions for future work: • remove rural sites that are too close to urban areas, may have affected results. • compare by region, especially for the Pacific Coast (PC) region. • for aerosols, compare winter vs. summer, urban/rural, low/high elev. • compare different model configurations, NMM-B, 4 km. • expand inland vs. coast comparison to include entire U.S. east coast.

More Related