David Kleeman - Changing Media, Changing Content, and Changing Minds
Climate Change Extremes and Air Pollution in California Michael J. Kleeman Department of Civil and...
-
Upload
dylan-garrett -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
Transcript of Climate Change Extremes and Air Pollution in California Michael J. Kleeman Department of Civil and...
Climate Change Extremes and Air Pollution in California
Michael J. KleemanDepartment of Civil and Environmental
EngineeringUC Davis
Air Pollution Taxonomy
Primary Pollutants• Emitted directly from a source to
the atmosphere
• Concentration determined by emissions rate, wind speed, PBL height, and precipitation
Secondary Pollutants• Produced by chemical reactions in
the atmosphere
• Concentration determined by emissions, wind speed, PBL height, precipitation, temperature, humidity, UV, etc.
wind(m/sec)
emissions (kg/sec)
Conc = emissions / (wind * height) height (m)
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11.html
Major Air Pollutants: Ozone and Particles
• Ozone (O3) is a chemical oxidant (reactive!)– Produced by CxHyOz + NOx -> O3
– inflammation of lung tissue, pulmonary and nasal congestion, coughing and wheezing, aggravates asthma, decreases resistance to pneumonia and bronchitis
• Airborne Particles (PM10, PM2.5)– Emitted directly or formed by chemical reaction– Associated with increased death rate even at low
concentrations (15 µg m-3)
Early Extreme Air Pollution Event: The London Fog
Source: http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session4/27/greatsmog52.htm
Source: DOCKERY DW, POPE CA, XU XP, et al. “AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AIR-POLLUTION AND MORTALITY IN 6 UNITED-STATES CITIES”, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 329 (24): 1753-1759 DEC 9 1993.
More Recent Health Effects Data for Airborne Particles: The Six Cities Study
PM2.5 Concentrations in the US:30,000 – 50,000 deaths each year
Source: US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/2007/report/particlepollution.pdf).
California’s Major Air
Basins
San Joaquin Valley
South Coast Air Basin
PM10 Time Trends 1980-2003 Riverside (Southern California)
Emissions changes make this a “non-stationary” signal.
We spend a lot of money to purchase this decrease over time.
Will climate change reduce the effectiveness of our emissions control programs?
Parallel Climate Model (PCM) - provides initial and boundary conditions for the Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF) model.
CIT-UCD 3D Photochemical Model - calculates transport and chemistry of gas- and particle-phase
species, and uses dry and wet deposition schemes
WRF Preprocessing System (WPS) - processes PCM outputs into the format used by WRF
Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) version 2.2 - generates hourly fields for a 264x264x10 grid-cell domain
with 4-km horizontal resolution, and variable vertical spacing extending to 5000 m above the ground
WRF Output Processing -extracts and processes 2D
and 3D meteorological fields for the air quality
model
Emissions Processing - processes source oriented typed emissions for area,
point, mobile and biogenic sources
Initial conditions, seasonal boundary conditions, and
land use data
- hourly mixing ratios of gas-phase and concentrations of particle-phase species using SAPRC chemical mechanism
Source: A. Mahmud, M. Hixson, J. Hu, Z. Zhao, S.H. Chen, M.J. Kleeman, “Climate impact on airborne particulate matter concentrations in California using seven year analysis periods”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 10, 1–35, 2010.
Over-view of Climate Air Quality Modeling System
Statistical downscaling for PM doesn’t work well in California.
Dynamic downscaling studies are expensive. How well do they work?
Seven-year Average PM2.5 Concentrations in California
PM2.5 Organic Compounds PM2.5 Nitrate
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
CELA SJ4 FSF M14 VCS S13
Site
To
tal M
ass
(mg
m-3
)
Mod
Obs
Observed data obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB )
Six sites in California: Central Los Angeles (CELA), San Jose (SJ4), Fresno (FSF), Modesto (M14), Visalia (VCS), and Sacramento (S13)
Comparison: Modeled vs Observed (2000-06)
PM2.5 Total Mass Comparison
Source: A. Mahmud, M. Hixson, J. Hu, Z. Zhao, S.H. Chen, M.J. Kleeman, “Climate impact on airborne particulate matter concentrations in California using seven year analysis periods”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 10, 1–35, 2010.
WRF Over-predicts Wind Speed During Pollution Events in California
Are WRF Predictions for Wind Speed Too “Noisy” During Pollution Events?
Simulation with PCM
Simulation with GFS
Are WRF PBL Height Predictions Reliable Enough?
Change in Annual Average Airborne Particle Concentrations Due to Climate is Smaller than Inter-Annual Variability
Change in 7-Year Average Airborne Particle Concentrations Due to Climate
Red=IncreasedBlue=Decreased
Probability that Calculations show a Statistically Significant Change
Green=Less CertainBlue=More Certain
Analysis of Extreme Events: 99th Percentile Days in 2000-06 vs. 2047-53
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.35 3.13 5.91 8.69 11.48 14.26 17.04 19.82
Bin mid-point (ug/m3)
2000-2006Sample (n) = 1008Mean (m ) = 8.06Std (s) = ±2.87
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.35
1.74
3.13
4.52
5.91
7.30
8.69
10.0
911
.4812
.8714
.2615
.6517
.0418
.4319
.8221
.21
Bin mid-point (mgm-3)
2047-2053Sample (n) = 1008Mean (m) = 7.92Std (s) =±3.08
(b)
Fre
qu
en
cy (
#)
(a)
Increase in Airborne Particle Concentrations During Future Extreme Events Due to Climate
99th Percentile PM2.52000-06 (max=46µg/m3)
99th Percentile PM2.5 2047-53 (max=58 µg/m3)
Difference in 99th Percentile PM2.5 Caused by Climate
Changing Population Exposure During Extreme Events
6
-6-10
-32816
-31
8812
-28
2671910
-200-150
-100-50
0
50100
150200
CA
25
-14
8153540
-54
444739
-27
56354538
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
SV
391624305753
-37
474949
-30
68475550
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
SJVF
utu
re c
ha
ng
e fr
om
pre
sen
t-d
ay
(%)
-7-23-13-9
20-2
-34-5-5-6
-36
3
-7
4
-6
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
TO
T M
AS
S
EC
OC
N(V
)
S(V
I)
N(-
III)
ME
TL
Dus
t
Shi
ppin
g
Woo
d S
mok
e
Die
sel
Com
bust
ion
Gas
olin
eC
ombu
stio
n
Mea
t Coo
king
Hig
h S
ulfu
rC
onte
nt F
uels
Mis
cella
neou
s
SoCAB
PM2.5 category/species
Wildfires Cause Extreme Air Quality Events
Ozone Concentrations in the US
Source: US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/2007/report/groundlevelozone.pdf).
Ozone Time Trends 1980-2003
Ozone Formation Increases at Warmer Temperatures
Statistical Evidence from Measurements
Predictions from Reactive Chemical Transport Models
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310Daily max T850 (K)
Dai
ly 1
-hr
max
ozo
ne (
ppb)
1980-1989: Slope=8.55 ppb/K
1990-1999: Slope=5.96 ppb/K
2000-2004: Slope=3.24 ppb/K
Los Angeles
Decreasing Ozone Climate Penalty Can Be Understood Using An “Isopleth” Diagram
Solid black lines mark contours of constant ozone concentrations
43ppb
75ppb
Dashed line shows our emissions trajectory between 1990 - 2020
Do Extreme Temperatures
Always Produce Extreme Ozone Concentrations?
Source: A. Steiner, A. Davis, S. Sillman, R. Owen, A. Michalak, and A. Fiore, “Observed Suppression of Ozone Formation at Extremely High Temperatures Due to Chemical and Biophysical Feedbacks”, PNAS, 107, P 19685-19690, 2010.
Conclusions• Air pollution events driven by emissions as well as
meteorology – we don’t have emissions models that can predict extreme events (traffic jams, factory upsets, etc)
• Regional climate models must accurately predict wind speed and PBL height during low wind speed “extreme events” – either summer or winter events
• Regional climate models must accurately predict high and low extreme temperatures – either summer or winter events
• Ozone “Climate-Penalty” is shrinking over time, but it likely won’t go to zero and it may rebound
• Climate does not strongly affect annual-average PM, but effects on extreme events may be stronger
EXTRA SLIDES
Temperature Changes2000-06 vs. 2047-53
ΔTemperature Summer (oC) Δ Temperature Winter (oC)
Source: Z. Zhao, S. Chen, and M. Kleeman, “The Impact of Climate Change on Air Quality Related Meteorological Conditions in California – Part II: Present versus Future Time Simulation Analysis”, Climate Change, submitted, 2010.
Humidity Changes (%)2000-06 vs. 2047-53
Source: A. Mahmud, M. Hixson, J. Hu, Z. Zhao, S.H. Chen, M.J. Kleeman, “Climate impact on airborne particulate matter concentrations in California using seven year analysis periods”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 10, 1–35, 2010.
Ozone Climate Penalty Is Decreasing Over Time
0
2
4
6
8
10
1980 1990 2000 2010
ΔO3
/ Δ
Tem
pera
ture
(ppb
/K)
Emissions Year
Ozone Response to Temperature in the SoCAB (1980-2010)
Statistical Downscaling (Mahmud et al., 2008)
Model Perturbation (Kleeman, 2008)
Model Perturbation (Millsteinand Harley, 2009)
Ozone Climate Penalty Doesn’t Go to Zero In the Future
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ΔO3
/ ΔTe
mpe
ratu
re (p
pb/K
)
Emissions Year
Azusa
Claremont
Central LA
Long Beach
Change in Population-Weighted PM Caused
by Climate
-2 -2 -4
2
-2 -1 -2 -2 -6 -5 -2 -3 -4 -5 -3
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50CA
0 0 -111
-5
4
-2 -2
0 -1 1 0 0 0 -1
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50SV
0 0
-2
5
-5
-1 0 0 1
-2
0
-1
-1
-2 -1
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50SJV
-2 -3 -3
2
-2
-1
-3 -2 -6 -4 -3 -3 -4 -6 -4
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50
TO
T M
AS
S
EC
OC
N(V
)
S(V
I)
N(-
III)
ME
TL
Dus
t
Shi
ppin
g
Woo
d S
mok
e
Die
sel
Com
bust
ion
Gas
olin
eC
ombu
stio
n
Mea
t Coo
king
Hig
h S
ulfu
rC
onte
nt F
uels
Mis
cella
neou
s
SoCAB
Fut
ure
chan
ge fr
om p
rese
nt-d
ay (
%)
PM2.5 category/species
Climate Impact May Be Stronger on Severe Airborne Particle Events
Increase in Airborne Particle Concentrations During Future Extreme Events Due to Climate
Population Exposure During Extreme Events
6
-6-10
-32816
-31
8812
-28
2671910
-200-150
-100-50
0
50100
150200
CA
25
-14
8153540
-54
444739
-27
56354538
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
SV
391624305753
-37
474949
-30
68475550
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
SJV
Fu
ture
ch
an
ge
fro
m p
rese
nt-
da
y (%
)
-7-23-13-9
20-2
-34-5-5-6
-36
3
-7
4
-6
-200-150-100-50
050
100150200
TO
T M
AS
S
EC
OC
N(V
)
S(V
I)
N(-
III)
ME
TL
Dus
t
Shi
ppin
g
Woo
d S
mok
e
Die
sel
Com
bust
ion
Gas
olin
eC
ombu
stio
n
Mea
t Coo
king
Hig
h S
ulfu
rC
onte
nt F
uels
Mis
cella
neou
s
SoCAB
PM2.5 category/species
Criteria Pollutant Emissions Reductions Associated With Climate Mitigation: AB32
Level 1 – Industrial
Level 2 – Electric Utilities & Natural Gas
Level 3 – Agricultural
Level 4 – On-road vehicles
Level 5 – Off-road vehicles
AB32 Has Different Impact on Each Criteria Pollutant Emissions Rate
-18.0%
-16.0%
-14.0%
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
PM EC OC NOx SOx ROG NH3
Perc
enta
ge Em
issio
n Ch
ange
from
BAU
Lvl 1: Industry
Lvl 2: Elec. & NG
Lvl 3: Agriculture
Lvl 4: On-road Mobile
Lvl 5: Other Mobile
AB32 Reduces Population Exposure to PM2.5 as a Co-Benefit of GHG Mitigation
(a) Change in population-weighted PM2.5 in California
(b) Change in population-weighted PM2.5 in Los Angeles
S-3-05: More Aggressive GHG Mitigation Strategies Have Bigger Co-Benefits
(a) Change in population-weighted PM2.5 in California
(b) Change in population-weighted PM2.5 in Los Angeles
Climate Predictions For 2001 vs. 2050 Using 36 km Resolution
Source:: Tagaris E, Liao KJ, Delucia AJ, Deck L, Amar P, Russell AG, “Potential Impact of Climate Change on Air Pollution-Related Human Health Effects”, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4979-4988, 2009.
Source:: Millstein, D.E., and Harley, R.A. “Impact of Climate Change on Photochemical Air Pollution in southern California”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 3745-3754, 2009.
Climate Predictions For 2001 vs. 2050 Using Averaged Meteorology