4-km vs 12-km AIRPACT: A Summertime Case

Transcription

1 Outline 4-km AIRPACT (AIRPACT4) vs 12-km AIRPACT (AIRPACT3) for a summertime case Incorporating WEPS into AIRPACT3 Using CALIPSO and MODIS satellite products to evaluate AIRPACT3 Impact of climate change on fire emissions

2 4-km vs 12-km AIRPACT: A Summertime Case Serena Chung, Joe Vaughan, Farren Herron-Thorpe, Rodrigo Gonzales Abraham, Jennifer Hinds, and Brian Lamb NW-AIRQUEST Meeting October, 6, 2011

3 New 4-km Domain Old 12-km Domain New 4-km North-South Borders Old 12-km North-South Borders

4 AIRPACT-4 vs AIRPACT-3 Terrain Height 4-km Domain 12-km Domain 4-km North-South Borders 12-km North-South Borders

5 AIRPACT-4 vs AIRPACT-3 AIRPACT-3 AIRPACT-4 Grid cells 95x95 12-km grid cells 285x258 4-km grid cells Vertical Layers 21 layers 21 layers MCIP v3.3 v3.6 SMOKE v2.1 (LAYPOINT v2.4) v2.7 CMAQ v4.6 v4.7.1 updated according to Carlton et al, ES&T Mass adjustment (CMAQ) denrate yamo 2005 from Ecology, IDEQ, 2007 from Ecology, IDEQ, Anthropogenic Emissions ODEQ ODEQ Fire Emissions None None Biogenic Emissions BEIS-3 MEGAN v2.1 8 processors on breezy 96 processor on aeolus CMAQ run time hours for 24-hour 3.5 hours for 64-hour run run System Wall Clock Time 8 hours TBD Storage Requirement for 24-hour Run Emission 1.1 GB 891 MB MCIP 428 MB 3.6 GB CMAQ 2 GB 33 GB

6 O 3 O 3

7 PM 2.5 PM 2.5

8 Aug 16, 11 pm Aug 16, noon O 3 O 3

9 PM 2.5 PM 2.5 Aug 16, 11 pm Aug 16, noon

10 Comparison to Three AIRNow Sites Seattle Beacon Hill Enumclaw Mud Mt Craters of the Moon

11 Seattle - Beacon Hill

12 Enumclaw Mud Mt

13 Craters of the Moon

14 VOC/NOx Emissions

15 Seattle Beacon Hill

16 Enumclaw Mud Mt

17 Craters of the Moon

18 Ozone Concentrations

19

20

21

22 PM Emissions

23

24

25

26 PM 2.5 Concentrations

27

28

29

30 Summary of AIRPACT4 vs AIRPACT3 AIRPACT4 VOC/NOx emissions tend to be higher in urban areas Ozone Higher O 3 concentrations in Beacon Hill and Enumclaw are likely associated with higher VOC and NO x emissions Different trend than the Feb 10-13, 2010 wintertime case. AIRPACT4 PM emission rate is much lower at Enumclaw AIRPACT4 PM 2.5 concentrations tend to be lower Comparison with other AIRNow sites:

31 Next Steps for AIRPACT4 Resolve run-time being too long Automate 4-km runs Change from WRF 00Z to WRF 12Z results Design web page Incorporate SMARTFIRE Update to MOVES

32 Updates on Incorporating the Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) into a Regional Air Quality Modeling System Serena Chung 1, Jincheng Gao 2, Larry Wagner 3, Fred Fox 3, Brian Lamb 1, Joe Vaughan 1, and Timothy VanReken 1 1 Washington State University 2 Kansas State University 3 USDA-ARS Engineering and Wind Erosion Unit

33 Understimation by WEPS/EROSION Previously for the Aug 26, 2010 episode Full WEPS + CMAQ simulation for resulted in underestimation of PM 10 concentrations by as much as 3 orders of magnitude. EROSION + CMAQ results assuming bare and very dry surface soil match PM 10 observations only after tweeking aerodynamic roughness to unreasonable values A Major Reason The minimum bare-soil static threshold friction velocity allowable in WEPS is ~ 0.5 m/s based on measurements performed for soils in the Midwest Measurements by Brenton Sharrat (WSU) indicate te the value should be ~0.2 m/s

34 August 26, 2010 Event with u* t, bare,static =0.2 m/s

35 Next Steps for WEPS Modify parameterization for u* t,static whensurface is covered by biomass using data from Brenton Sharratt Extend the full WRF-WEPS-CMAQ framework to Oregon. Improve the computational efficiency of and parallize the full WEPS model in order to implement AIRPACT-WEPS as a forecast tool. Currently 24-hour simulations take ~ 30 hours to run.

36 Use of Satellite Products to Evaluate and Improve AIRPACT Matthew Woelfle 1, Farren Herron-Thorpe 2, and Joe Vaughan 2 1 North Carolina State University 2 Washington State University

37 Objectives Use MODIS AOD to determine the horizontal extent of aerosols from wildfires Develop system to properly compare modeled aerosol vertical profiles with the CALIOP/CALIPSO aerosol subtype categories.

38 Wildfire Impact on Ozone

39 Wildfire Impact on NO 2 OMI NO2 VCD AIRPACT3 NO2 VCD

40 Limitations of the Analysis Aerosol chemical composistion are not resolved from space. CALIOP retrievals have very poor horizontal spatial coverage

41 Aerosol Optical Depth MODIS AIRPACT3 July 16 th, 2008 (~2 p.m.)

42 AIRPACT Vertical Feauture Mask (VFM) Decision Tree Algorithm

43 CALIPSO Overpass & AIRPACT3 Domain

44 CALIPSO VFM and aerosol distributions, AIRPACT VFM derived from decision-tree algorithm, and along-track MODIS AOD

45 Conclusions CALIPSO typically retrieves less aerosol than what is modeled for both fires and urban areas. This is to be somewhat expected as space-based Lidar cannot penetrate to the surface. Wildfires are too persistent with the older BlueSky framework due to infrequent updates of the ICS-209 ground reports. This agrees with previous NO 2 work. Future Plans Incorporate the BlueSky SmartFire system (includes MODIS hot spot detection) to better estimate wildfire emissions and redo the analysis.

46 Impact of Climate Change on Air Quality due to Fires Rodrigo Gonzales Abraham 1, Jeremay Avise 1,2, Serena Chung 1, Brian Lamb 1, Natasha Stavros 3, Tara Strand 4, Don McKenzie 4, Sim Larkin 4, Yongxin Zhang 3,5, and Eric Salathe 3 1 Washington State University 2 California Air Resources Board 3 University of Washington 4 USDA Forest Services 5 National Center for Atmospehric Research

47 Area Burned from Fire Scenario Builder (FSB) Five Years in Each Decade

48 Area Burned from FSB Five Years in Each Decade

49 CO 2 Emissions from FSB and BlueSky Current Decade Future Decade

50 Future Work on Climate Change and Fire Compare FSB current decade results with historical fire records to see if FSB captures the distribution of area burned and fire emissions Evaluate the air-quality impact (ozone and PM 2.5 ) of fires For historical fires In the context of climate change