1 / 16

CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of Model Evaluation

CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of Model Evaluation. Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, Youjun Qin, Glen Kaukola, Tiegang Cao, University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Center for Environmental Research and Technology.

yank
Download Presentation

CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of Model Evaluation

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. CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison:Summary of Model Evaluation Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, Youjun Qin, Glen Kaukola, Tiegang Cao, University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Center for Environmental Research and Technology November 18, 2003, Progress Report to CARB

  2. Evaluate 3 Models for 2 Mechanisms: CAMx version 3 CMAQ version 4.2.2 SAQM CBM-IV (CB4) gas phase chemistry SAPRC99 gas phase chemistry Study Plan

  3. Processed the MM5 files using: MCIP for CMAQ mm5camx Met Cases Used: ETA MRF, several versions Sensitivity case with reduced wind speed Meteorology

  4. Raw Emissions files from Alpine Geophysics Processed using ARB software, ported to Linux. Emissions Sensitivity cases included: Fire emissions Corrections to mobile sources Corrections to Point Sources Emissions Inventories

  5. Focused primarily on CAMx sensitivity simulations which had highest O3. Ran multiple iterations using Emission updates and Meteorology updates. Including fire emissions had largest effect. Small changes (few ppb O3) for other sensitivities All models under predicted O3

  6. Performance results at website www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/ccos Click on site to bring up O3, CO and NOx plots at monitoring sites.

  7. CAMx Evaluation July 30

  8. CAMx Evaluation July 31

  9. CAMx Evaluation August 1

  10. Peak O3 150 ppb in Kern Co., early in Day Adding fire emissions gave us 142 ppb O3 at 10 AM near Bakersfield Not a good case to model because of contribution of fires. CAMx Evaluation August 2

  11. Compare CAMx SAPRC99 vs CB4

  12. CAMx SAPRC99 minus CB4 • SAPRC99 has higher O3 than CB4 throughout the domain. • SAPRC99 has higher peak O3, 119 vs 113 ppb consistent with previous results. • CB4 has updated (1/03) emissions but this appears to have minor effect. (However do not have new mobile yet.)

  13. Compare CAMx SAPRC99 ETA vs MRF • ETA has lower O3 in urban areas. • ETA has greater variation in O3, i.e., curve is “less flat”. • Peak O3 is shifted 2 cells but virtually unchanged on 7/30.

  14. Boundary Conditions O3 BC sensitivity increased O3 by2 to 5 ppb in Bay Area and northern domain. N2O5 Hydrolysis Increased O3 by 5 to 8 ppb in SQV Other Sensitivity Case

  15. Models are insensitive to changes in emissions inputs (within the uncertainty range used here). Models are sensitive to wind speed. Fire create large uncertainty. Fate of NOx is a key uncertainty in SJV: N2O5 hydrolysis and “re-noxification” will lead to higher model O3 for SJV. Conclusions

  16. Vertical mixing sensitivity: Reduce Kz_min 1:1 mapping for MM5 and air quality model Fire Sensitivity simulations Run models with aerosols to include heterogeneous chemistry effects. Evaluate other episodes. Recommend Future Work

More Related