2007 Group Meeting Global Climate and Air Pollution (GCAP) at Harvard University Nicky Lam and Joshua Fu University of Tennessee October 12, 2007.

2007 Group Meeting 2007 Group Meeting Global Climate and Air Global Climate and Air

Pollution (GCAP)Pollution (GCAP)

atat

Harvard UniversityHarvard University

Nicky Lam and Joshua FuNicky Lam and Joshua Fu

University of TennesseeUniversity of Tennessee

October 12, 2007October 12, 2007

GCAP UpdateGCAP UpdateUT TeamUT Team

1. Find best MM5 schemes for GISS data• Sensitivity analysis• Best scenario for whole domain• Best scenario for Northeastern States,

Southeastern States, Central States, & West States

2. Preliminary run using Barry Lynn suggested base on the Best MM5 schemes in Northeastern States and other schemes combinations

3. CMAQ runs for 2001 and 2050

No Cumulus Scheme PBL SchemeMicrophysics

SchemeRadiation Scheme Data

1 Grell MRF Simple ice RRTM GISS2 Grell MRF Goddard m RRTM GISS3 Grell MRF Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

4 Grell Gayno-seaman/Eta Simple ice RRTM GISS5 Grell Gayno-seaman/Eta Goddard m RRTM GISS6 Grell Gayno-seaman/Eta Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

7 Grell PX Simple ice RRTM GISS8 Grell PX Goddard m RRTM GISS9 Grell PX Reisner 2 RRTM GISS10 Betts-Miller MRF Simple ice RRTM GISS11 Betts-Miller MRF Goddard m RRTM GISS12 Betts-Miller MRF Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

13 Betts-Miller Gayno-seaman/Eta Simple ice RRTM GISS14 Betts-Miller Gayno-seaman/Eta Goddard m RRTM GISS15 Betts-Miller Gayno-seaman/Eta Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

16 Betts-Miller PX Simple ice RRTM GISS17 Betts-Miller PX Goddard m RRTM GISS18 Betts-Miller PX Reisner 2 RRTM GISS19 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) MRF Simple ice RRTM GISS20 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) MRF Goddard m RRTM GISS21 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) MRF Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

22 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) Gayno-seaman/Eta Simple ice RRTM GISS23 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) Gayno-seaman/Eta Goddard m RRTM GISS24 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) Gayno-seaman/Eta Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

25 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) PX Simple ice RRTM GISS26 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) PX Goddard m RRTM GISS27 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) PX Reisner 2 RRTM GISS

QA/QC runs1 Grell MRF Simple ice RRTM NCAR- FNL2 Betts-Miller Gayno-seaman/Eta Goddard m RRTM NCAR- FNL3 KF2/(KF, if KF2 fail) PX Reisner 2 RRTM NCAR- FNL4 Observation Results

Highlighted scenario are the preliminary runs

GISS/MM5 Downscale ModelingGISS/MM5 Downscale Modeling

Observed/Predicted Temperature

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

7/ 1

7/ 2

7/ 3

7/ 4

7/ 5

7/ 6

7/ 7

7/ 8

7/ 9

7/1

0

7/1

1

7/1

2

7/1

3

7/1

4

7/1

5

7/1

6

7/1

7

7/1

8

7/1

9

7/2

0

7/2

1

7/2

2

7/2

3

7/2

4

7/2

5

7/2

6

7/2

7

7/2

8

7/2

9

7/3

0

7/3

1

Time (Hr)

Te

mp

era

ture

(K

)

Observation

Prediction - Case 24

Prediction - Case 3

Prediction - Case 15

•Case 24 (Kain-Fritsch 2, Eta, Reisner 2, RRTM) has closer temperature compared to others

•Similar wind speed were found on all cases

•Similar wind direction were found on all cases

Noted: Noah LSM is not available due to lack of soil layers

Current Soil Layer Configuration

10 10 10 1017.3 30

200

17.329.8

60

29.8

51.4

10088.6

153

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

GoesChem Noah LSM PX LSM Current data

Type

Cu

mu

lati

ve H

eig

ht

(cm

)

Layer 6

Layer 5

Layer 4

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 1

May need to discuss with Loretta to reprocessing the output from GEOS-Chem

• Case 24 is used in all preliminary Case 24 is used in all preliminary simulation.simulation.

• This setting was suggested by Barry This setting was suggested by Barry Lynn claimed to be the best scenario Lynn claimed to be the best scenario for Northeastern Statesfor Northeastern States

MM5 Scheme Evaluation

MM5 SettingMM5 Setting

• LAMBERT CONFORMAL• NO COARSE DOMAIN EXPANSION • TRUE LATITUDE 1 (degree) => 33 degrees• TRUE LATITUDE 2 (degree) => 45 degrees

• Time increment between analysis times (s)=> 3 hrs data• Top pressure used in analysis, model lid (Pa) => 10000.00• No FDDA• Number of half-sigma layers => 34 layers• Simulation duration for each run => 6 days with 12 hrs spinoff• Simulation time step => 90 seconds

X Cells Y Cells(East to West) (North to South)

1 36-km ConUSA

165 129 (-97, 40) USGS 24 Category

Domain ID

Grid Central Coordinates

Land use Type

MM5 Sigma Level => from INTERPF

Level SigmaPressure

(mb)Height

(m)Depth

(m)34 0 10000 14662 184133 0.05 14500 12822 146632 0.1 19000 11356 122831 0.15 23500 10127 106230 0.2 28000 9066 93929 0.25 32500 8127 84328 0.3 37000 7284 76727 0.35 41500 6517 70426 0.4 46000 5812 65225 0.45 50500 5160 60724 0.5 55000 4553 569

23 0.55 59500 3984 53622 0.6 64000 3448 50621 0.65 68500 2942 48020 0.7 73000 2462 36719 0.74 76600 2095 26618 0.77 79300 1828 259

17 0.8 82000 1569 16916 0.82 83800 1400 16615 0.84 85600 1235 16314 0.86 87400 1071 16013 0.88 89200 911 15812 0.9 91000 753 7811 0.91 91900 675 7710 0.92 92800 598 779 0.93 93700 521 768 0.94 94600 445 767 0.95 95500 369 756 0.96 96400 294 745 0.97 97300 220 744 0.98 98200 146 373 0.985 98650 109 372 0.99 99100 73 361 0.995 99550 36 360 1 100000 0 --SURF-

Noted: MCIP extracts the highlighted sigma level for CMAQ

CMAQ ModelingCMAQ Modeling

Current Case StudyCurrent Case Study

• 2001 meteorology with 2001 emission

• 2050 meteorology with 2001 emission– Find the effect that contributed from the

change of GISS meteorology

• Time period: June 1 to October 1 (Ozone season)

CMAQCMAQ

• 14 layers (from the previous sigma levels)

• ICON and BCON from GEOS-Chem from 3 hrs to one hour average

• GISS meteorological Inputs

• Input emission is compatible with 2001 EPA emission

MM5 Comparison between GISS_2001, GISS_2050 and

NCEP_2001(FDDA)

Temperature AverageTemperature Average

Temperature MaximumTemperature Maximum

PBL AveragePBL Average

Air Density AverageAir Density Average

Wind Speed AverageWind Speed Average

Pressure AveragePressure Average

Precipitation AveragePrecipitation Average

Total Cloud Fraction AverageTotal Cloud Fraction Average

Dry Dep. Velocity AverageDry Dep. Velocity Average

Conv. Velocity Scale AverageConv. Velocity Scale Average

CMAQ comparison

2001 GISS data

2050 GISS data

OO33 concentration vs. Temperature concentration vs. Temperature

Relationship

Maximum OMaximum O33

At the same location

Avg NOAvg NOxx & Avg VOCs & Avg VOCs

More VOCs, but less O3, Main effect => T

NOx limited Area, no big diff.

PMPM2.52.5 & DCV & DCV

7.2 m 7.2 m

391 m 391 m

Visual Range Parameters:

Deciview (dv) : dV = 10 ln (b / 0.01), b [km-1] : extinction coeff.

Koschmieder Visual Range :

Vr = 3.91 / b [km]

dV Vr [km] km-1]

60 1.0 4.040 7.2 0.5520 53 0.0710 144 0.03 0 391 0.01

SOSO22 & Total Sulfur Dep. & Total Sulfur Dep.very minimal Effect

Average O3 Concentration

Mid West North East South East Full Domain2001_Temp_AVG 299.4 298.6 302.7 297.42050_Temp_AVG 300.8 300.2 303.6 298.5

Diff 1.4 1.7 0.8 1.1

2001_O3_AVG 30.5 36.1 33.7 26.82050_O3_AVG 29.4 37.0 31.9 26.5

Diff -1.1 0.9 -1.8 -0.4

Maximum O3 Concentration

Mid West North East South East Full Domain2001_Temp_MAX 311.1 308.6 309.9 305.62050_Temp_MAX 313.0 311.1 310.8 307.2

Diff 1.9 2.5 0.9 1.7

2001_O3_MAX 63.8 91.3 81.6 58.42050_O3_MAX 66.7 98.7 79.7 58.5

Diff 2.9 7.5 -1.9 0.1

Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001)Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001)Average Temp. & Average O3 Conc.

Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001)Comparison between 2050 and 2001 (2050 – 2001)Max Temp. & Max O3 Conc.