1 / 32

NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 3. Descriptive Analysis

NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 3. Descriptive Analysis. Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005. Geographic Distributions of Current and Natural Hazes and Their Differences. Default Natural Conditions -- 20% Worst Days.

xander
Download Presentation

NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 3. Descriptive Analysis

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. NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT3. Descriptive Analysis Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005 Draft, 3 June 2005

  2. Geographic Distributions of Current and Natural Hazes and Their Differences Draft, 3 June 2005

  3. Default Natural Conditions -- 20% Worst Days Draft, 3 June 2005

  4. Default Natural Conditions (20% worst days) • Mainly divided into East & West regions, modulated by RH (no surprise!) • All of East ~ 11 dv • Most of West ~ 7 dv, except Pacific Northwest ~ 8 dv and Oklahoma ~ 9 dv Draft, 3 June 2005

  5. Current (1999-2003) 20% Worst Days Draft, 3 June 2005

  6. Current Conditions20% worst days • Ranking • 1. (Clearest) Alaska, Rockies, Colorado Plateau, and Sonora Desert • 2. Sierra Nevada/Cascades, except for substantially poorer visibility in southern half of California) • 3. Northern Great Plains and West TX/eastern NM • 4. New England, Upper Midwest, and Ozarks • 5. (Haziest) New Jersey and inland Southeast, except that Southeast coasts are much clearer Draft, 3 June 2005

  7. Haze Reductions Required to Reach Default Natural Conditions Draft, 3 June 2005

  8. Rate of Haze Reduction to Reach Default Natural Conditions in 2064 Draft, 3 June 2005

  9. Needed Haze Reductions= (current - default) • Ranking • 1. (Largest reductions needed) Southeast, next largest along Southeast coast and at Ozarks. Similar reductions needed in southern Sierra Nevada and some locations in Southern California • 2. New England, northern border of the US, eastern OR, and West TX/eastern NM • 3. Sierra Nevada, Sonora Desert, Idaho • 4. (Smallest reductions needed) Alaska, Rockies • Rate (dv/decade) = (current - default)/6 Draft, 3 June 2005

  10. Comparison of Current Annual Average and 20% Worst Visibility Days Concentrations versus Default Annual Averages, for Each Component of Extinction in the IMPROVE Formula(Expressed as concentrations in excess of the default annual concentrations. Negative value means that default concentration exceeds current measured value.) Draft, 3 June 2005

  11. Current Annual Average AmmSO4 Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  12. Current 20% Worst Days AmmSO4 Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  13. Current Annual Average AmmNO3 Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  14. Current 20% Worst Days AmmNO3 Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  15. Current Annual Average OMC Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  16. Current 20% Worst Days OMC Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  17. Current Annual Average LAC Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  18. Current 20% Worst Days LAC Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  19. Current Annual Average Fine Soil Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  20. Current 20% Worst Days Fine Soil Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  21. Current Annual Average Coarse Matter Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  22. Current 20% Worst Days Coarse Matter Concentration Excess Over Default Natural Annual Concentration Draft, 3 June 2005

  23. Summary -- Comparison of Component Concentrations • Some current average concentrations are less than default natural concentrations • Occurs for AmmNO3, OMC, fine soil, and/or coarse matter • Occurs at areas in Alaska, Hawaii, mountains in West, near northern border of eastern half of US. Also, for soil and CM only, occurs in Appalachians from SW corner of NC northward Draft, 3 June 2005

  24. Summary -- Comparison of Component Concentrations (cont’d) • Some current worst 20% day concentrations are also less than default natural concentrations • Occurs for fine soil and/or coarse matter, and is within 0.01 µg/m3 for AmmNO3 • Occurs at areas in Alaska, north Pacific coast, northern Cascades, western Idaho, and in Appalachians from SW corner of NC northward • Note though that soil and CM concentrations may not be very high (even less than average) on worst haze days, which are often driven by sulfates, nitrates, and RH Draft, 3 June 2005

  25. Summary -- Comparison of Component Concentrations (cont’d) • If default concentrations represent averages for large areas of the country, one would expect that natural conditions averages at some sites would be below these regional averages. It is surprising how much this occurs with current conditions. • ==> Either current conditions for these components are already near natural levels or some default values are too high, or both. • ==> Default concentrations need more regional variation than they have today Draft, 3 June 2005

  26. Regional Patterns of Current Reconstructed vs. Measured Fine and Total Mass Concentrations averages for Worst 20% Haze DaysGoal: Look for geographic patterns in the differences and ratios that could be explained by missing or misrepresented components (e.g., sea salt), which could provide clues to refinements in the default natural haze index calculations. Draft, 3 June 2005

  27. Difference Between Reconstructed and Measured Fine Mass Draft, 3 June 2005

  28. Ratio of Reconstructed to Measured Fine Mass Draft, 3 June 2005

  29. Difference Between Reconstructed and Measured Total Mass Draft, 3 June 2005

  30. Ratio of Reconstructed to Measured Total Mass Draft, 3 June 2005

  31. Summary -- Comparisons of Reconstructed and Measured Mass Concentrations • Generally RCFM values are less than the measured quantities, except in Southern California. The smallest ratios (< 0.8) are in Alaska and Hawaii. The largest (> 1.1) are in Southern California • The absolute differences are very nearly the same for fine and total mass, but the ratios are closer to 1 for total mass. The largest differences (nearly -4 µg/m3) occur at Great Smoky Mountains NP and nearby Class I areas. Draft, 3 June 2005

  32. Summary of Mass Comparisons (cont’d) • There is no obvious indication, except for Southern California, that the ratio of reconstructed to measured fine mass has any geographic biases. The total mass ratio appears to be lower in the western mountains (Rockies, Cascades, Sierra Nevada) than in regional lower terrain (discounting the southern Sierra Nevada). Draft, 3 June 2005

More Related