Prepared by: Neil Wheeler, Ken Craig, and Steve Reid Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, CA
description
Transcript of Prepared by: Neil Wheeler, Ken Craig, and Steve Reid Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, CA
1
Prepared by:Neil Wheeler, Ken Craig, and Steve Reid
Sonoma Technology, Inc.Petaluma, CA
Presented to:CCOS Technical Committee
Sacramento, CAOctober 1, 2008
904150
Meteorological Modeling Analyses of Data Captured During the CRPAQS Field
Program
Final Presentation 04-2PM
2
Overview
• Introduction
• Analyses
• Summary and Conclusions
• Recommendations
3
General Questions
• To what extent can we drive and evaluate diagnostic/prognostic meteorological models using the meteorological data collected?
• Do the simulated meteorology fields represent reality?
4
Topics Investigated
• Ability of meteorological models to represent important phenomena
• Model evaluation techniques• Transport pathways• Adequacy and validity of measurement
methods• Sufficiency of data precision, accuracy, bias,
consistency, and time-resolution
5
Modeling Periods
• CALMET (STI):• 12/24/2000 – 12/30/2000• 01/03/2001 – 01/09/2001
• MM5 (ARB):• 12/14/2000 – 01/08/2001(No FDDA Case)
• Combined:• 12/25/2000 – 12/30/2000• 01/03/2001 – 01/08/2001
6
Important Processes
• Stagnation
• Moisture/Fog/Stratus
• Vertical mixing including plume rise
• Recirculation
• Precursor transport (Carbon vs. Nitrate)
7
Data Analyses
• Statistics (METSTAT)
• Time series plots (T, Q, WS, WD, PBL, VI)
• Spatial plots
• Vertical wind profiles
• Extent of Fog/Stratus
• Soil temperature
• Transport Statistics
8
METSTAT
• Developed by ENVIRON for TCEQ
• Adjustments to T and WS based on similarity theory
• Issues
• Modifications by Nelson-Gammon (TAMU)
• Modifications by STI
• T2m approximation by linear interpolation
9
Statistics1. Hourly mean observations over all sites2. Hourly mean predictions over all sites3. Hourly bias (signed error) over all sites4. Hourly systematic, unsystematic, and total root mean square error
(RMSE) over all sites except for wind direction5. Hourly Index of Agreement (IOA) over all sites except for wind
direction6. Daily mean observations over all hours and sites7. Daily mean predictions over all hours and sites8. Daily bias (signed error) over all hours and sites9. Daily gross error (unsigned error) over all hours and sites10. Daily systematic, unsystematic, and total RMSE over all hours and
sites except for wind direction11. Daily Index of Agreement (IOA) over all hours and sites except for
wind direction
10
Analysis Regions
1. Pacific Ocean2. Northwest California3. San Francisco Bay Area4. Central Coast5. Sacramento Valley North6. Sacramento Valley South/SJV North7. San Joaquin Valley Central8. San Joaquin Valley South9. Eastern Mountains and Deserts
11
Moisture• CALMET generally replicates the observed moisture with little or
no bias but only provides relative humidity from the site nearest to each grid-cell
• During the first few simulation days, MM5 has a low bias. After 12/20, MM5 generally has a 0.5 g/kg high bias in water vapor mixing ratio
• MM5 trends are generally consistent with observations, but the diurnal cycle is damped (especially in central and southern SJV)) compared to the observations
• Nighttime mixing ratio errors are generally larger than daytime errors
• MM5 usually underpredicts nighttime maxima overpredicts daytime minima
• Errors are quite pronounced (bias approaching 2 g/kg) in the northern Sacramento Valley
12
Temperature• CALMET generally replicates the observed temperatures
with little or no bias• MM5 temperatures are biased high through much of the
simulation across the Central Valley, SFBA, and central coast
• MM5 often overpredicts both nighttime minimum and daytime maximum temperature
• Nighttime errors are generally larger than daytime errors.• MM5 generally exhibits a damped diurnal cycle compared
to observations Bias/Gross Error Temperature
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/05 1/06 1/07 1/08
K
Temprtr Bias Temprtr Gross Error
13
PBL Height
• Both CALMET and MM5 underestimate nighttime PBL heights
• CALMET is biased high during the day but often gets the peak heights correct. However, mid-morning PBL heights rise too rapidly
• MM5 is biased low but often does better than CALMET with the mid-morning rate of increase
14
Winds
• CALMET generally replicates the observed winds with little or no bias except in cells near multiple observing sites
• MM5 wind speeds are generally underpredicted (bias ~0.4 m/s overall)
• MM5 wind directions are generally unbiased
Bias/Gross Error Windspeed
-1
0
1
2
3
12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31
m/s
Wind Spd Bias Wind Spd Gross Error
Bias/Gross Error Wind Direction
-90-60
-30030
6090
12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 12/25 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31
deg
Wind Dir Bias Wind Dir Gross Error
C
15
Ventilation Index
16
Wind Profiles
Angiola 12/25/2008
17
Transport Statistics (1 of 2)
• Statistics:• Daily Transport Distance• Daily Wind Direction• Daily Scalar Wind Run• Recirculation Factor
• Calculated at RWP sites by vertical bins
• RWP, CALMET, and MM5 compared
18
Transport Statistics (2 of 2)
19
Transport Statistics (3 of 3)
• CALMET
• MM5
• Can not be evaluated where there are no data
20
Soil Temperature (1 of 2)
Davis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
De
g C
Avg Air Temp (°C) Avg Soil Temp (°C)
Parlier
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Date
De
g C
Avg Air Temp (°C) Avg Soil Temp (°C)
21
Soil Temperature (2 of 2)
Soil Temperatures at Davis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
De
g. C
CIMIS 15-cm MM5 15-cm MM5 47-cm
Soil Temperatures at Parlier
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Date
De
g. C
CIMIS 15-cm MM5 15-cm MM5 47-cm
22
Extent of Fog - Satellite Imagery
Satellite 25-31 December 2000
23
Extent of Fog - Satellite vs. MM5
• CALMET does not predict or output fog or clouds.
• MM5 tends to overestimate the extent of fog/stratus.
24
Modeling Analyses
• Tracer Conservation (CALMET, MM5 -> CAMx)
• Tagged Tracer (CALMET, MM5 -> CAMx)
• MM5 Sensitivity• Time Step (6 vs. 12 minute)• Moisture Availability (25% and 75% reductions)
• Plume Rise (CALMET, MM5 -> CAMx vs. SF6 tracer)
25
Tracer Conservation
• Purpose: Assess modeling systems’ behavior• CAMx simulations• Meteorological processing
• MM5CAMx• CMETCAMx
• Initial conditions: 1 ppm of inert tracer• Emissions and boundary conditions: Zero• Analysis
• Surface concentrations• Mass balance• Peak tracer concentrations by region
26
December 25: 7 Hours
27
December 27: 60 Hours
28
January 3: 12 Hours
29
January 5: 55 Hours
30
January 7: 96 Hours
31
Summary of Tracer Conservation
• CAMx loses mass faster with CALMET meteorology than with MM5
• CAMx-MM5 maintains a clearer separation of mass within the Central Valley
• CALMET is losing mass through vertical transport
• Evidence of observation-induced divergence is seen in CALMET, which may be useful for eliminating unrepresentative sites
32
Transport Analysis
• Tagged Tracers
• Improvement over original data analysis methods
• CAMx Simulations
• Initial and Boundaries Conditions: Zero
• Emissions• NOx emissions mapped as unique inert tracer
species to 6 urban areas and 1 “all other” area
• Analysis• Surface concentrations• Contributions to concentrations at specific sites
33
Tracer Source Areas
• Sacramento• San Francisco Bay Area• Stockton- Modesto• Fresno• Visalia• Bakersfield• Other
34
Angiola: December 25-30 2000
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
2000360 2000361 2000362 2000363 2000364 2000365
PM
2.5
Angiola
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000360 2000361 2000362 2000363 2000364 2000365
Tra
ce
r C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(p
pb
)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000360 2000361 2000362 2000363 2000364 2000365
Tra
ce
r C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(p
pb
)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
CALMET-CAMx Inert Tracer
MM5-CAMx Inert Tracer
Observed PM2.5
35
Bakersfield: January 3-8 2001
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
PM
2.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
ce
r C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(p
pb
)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
0
50
100
150
200
250
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
cer
Co
nc
en
trati
on
(p
pb
)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
CALMET-CAMx Inert Tracer
MM5-CAMx Inert Tracer
Observed PM2.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
PM
2.5
Jan 3
36
Modesto and LivermoreLivermore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
cer
Co
nc
entr
atio
n (
pp
b)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
Livermore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
cer
Co
nc
entr
atio
n (
pp
b)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
Modesto
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
cer
Co
nc
entr
atio
n (
pp
b)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
Modesto
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2001003 2001004 2001005 2001006 2001007 2001008
Tra
cer
Co
nc
entr
atio
n (
pp
b)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
CALMET
MM5
37
Fresno: MM5-CAMx December 18 – January 9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Tra
ce
r C
on
ce
ntra
tio
n (
pp
b)
OTHT
SFOT
SACT
MODT
FATT
VIST
BFLT
38
Summary of Tagged Tracers
• Local tracer emissions dominate the total tracer concentration although 5 to 30% of the total tracer concentrations at the urban sites are from “rural” areas
• The relative contribution of rural tracers at urban sites is less in CALMET simulations than in the MM5 simulations
• Transport between the SJV, SV, and SFBA air basin occurs on some days but does not dominate most of the analysis period (Inter-basin transport)
• The relative contribution of non-local tracers (i.e., tracers not emitted from the area selected for analysis) is larger in MM5 than in CALMET (Intra-basin transport)
39
MM5 Sensitivity Simulations
• Time Step (6 vs. 12 minutes)• Soil Moisture
• 25% Reduction• 75% Reduction• Results:
–Moisture – Improved at 25%–Temperature – little change–PBL Height – little change–Clouds/Fog – little change
40
Plume Rise
• South Belridge Oil Field
• Clean Airship I
• SF6 Tracer
• CAMx modified to output plume rise
• CALMET and MM5
41
South Belridge Oil Field
42
Summary of CAMx Simulations
Simulation Number
Flights DateStart Time
End Time
Meteorology Emission Rates
1 2-3 12/16/2001 1500 1700 MM5 1500-1700: 5.4 lb/hr
2 4-7 12/17/2000 0800 1200 MM50800-1000: 5.4 lb/hr 1000-1100: 1.0 lb/hr 1100-1200: 3.2 lb/hr
3 9-14 1/4/2001 0800 1300 MM5 0800-1300: 2.0 lb/hr
4 15-18 1/5/2001 0800 1700 MM5
0800-1000: 2.0 lb/hr 1000-1200: 0.0 lb/hr 1200-1300: 3.1 lb/hr 1300-1400: 0.0 lb/hr 1400-1700: 3.7 lb/hr
5 19-22 1/6/2001 0800 1600 MM50800-1000: 3.7 lb/hr 1000-1400: 0.0 lb/hr 1400-1600: 4.3 lb/hr
6 9-14 1/4/2001 0800 1300 CALMET same as experiment 3
7 15-18 1/5/2001 0800 1700 CALMET same as experiment 4
8 19-22 1/6/2001 0800 1600 CALMET same as experiment 5
43
Observed and Modeled Plume Rise
Comparison of observation-based and model-based plume rise (m)
44
Other Plume Analyses
• Vertical Diffusion
• Concentrations
• Horizontal and Vertical Transport and Diffusion
45
Plume Rise Summary
• Treatment of plume rise under stable nighttime conditions – not addressed in the experiments
• Plume heights calculated in CAMx were generally less than the observed
• Vertical transport and diffusion resulted in SF6 predicted at elevations above those observed
• Nighttime chemistry in the first 200 m agl
• Perform diagnostic simulations to investigate the impact of nighttime plume rise uncertainties on photochemical simulations of aerosol formation
46
Summary and Conclusions
47
Modeling Summary (1 of 3)
• CALMET replicates meteorological values at measurement sites but may not correctly represent spatial gradients
• MM5 has biases in temperature, moisture, wind speed, extend of fog, and PBL height that appear be related to land-surface-atmosphere interactions
• MM5 diurnal patterns of moisture, temperature, and PBL height do not match observed patterns
• CALMET-CAMx appears to lose mass too fast from the Central Valley
48
Modeling Summary (2 of 3)
• CALMET might be improved by more selective use of observational data but it is not clear if interpolation-induced divergence can be eliminated
• MM5-CAMx maintains mass in the Central Valley longer than CALMET-CAMx but predicts greater non-local contributions to inert-tracer concentrations (even though it underestimates wind speeds)
• Significant modifications to CALMET would be required to provide the spatially varying (vertical and horizontal) moisture fields required by photochemical aerosol models
49
Modeling Summary (3 of 3)
• Daytime plume rise in CAMx is underestimated using both CALMET and MM5 meteorology
• Adjustments to the MM5 moisture availability can reduce biases on moisture prediction but do little to improve the diurnal range and evolution of moisture, temperature, and PBL height
50
Conclusions
• Adequacy and validity of measurement methods• Traditional
• RWP
• SODAR
• Sufficiency of data precision, accuracy, bias, consistency, and time-resolution
• Spatial representativeness
51
Conclusions
• Ability of models to represent important phenomena• Stagnation• Moisture/Fog/Stratus• Vertical mixing including plume rise• Recirculation - horizontal and vertical• Precursor transport – Ambiguous Nitrate
52
Conclusions
• Model Evaluation Techniques• Conservation of tracers
• Integrated and summary metrics
• Extent of fog and clouds
• Soil temperature and moisture
• Transport Pathways• Intra-basin
• Inter-basin
• CALMET vs. MM5
53
Recommendations (1 of 2)
• Use a land surface model in future MM5 simulations - Issues
• Use FDDA in MM5 simulations • Selectively reduce the number of sites used
for objective analysis or data assimilation• Consider using WRF in future simulations• Meteorological and Photochemical modeling
and evaluation should be an integrated process
54
Recommendations (2 of 2)
• Model Performance Evaluation• Better geo-referencing of satellite images and
greater automation for extent of fog analysis• Improve methods addressing commensurability• Unify and standardize MPE tools• Use integrated methods: tracers and combination
metrics
• CALMET vs. MM5• More research on nighttime mixing processes• Make meteorological model evaluation products
available for PM2.5 model evaluations