Evaluation of the NAQFC driven by the NOAA Global Forecast System (version 16): comparison with the WRF-CMAQ during the summer 2019 FIREX-AQ campaign
-
Published:2022-11-07
Issue:21
Volume:15
Page:7977-7999
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Tang YouhuaORCID, Campbell Patrick C.ORCID, Lee Pius, Saylor Rick, Yang Fanglin, Baker Barry, Tong Daniel, Stein Ariel, Huang Jianping, Huang Ho-Chun, Pan LiORCID, McQueen Jeff, Stajner IvankaORCID, Tirado-Delgado Jose, Jung Youngsun, Yang Melissa, Bourgeois IlannORCID, Peischl JeffORCID, Ryerson TomORCID, Blake Donald, Schwarz JoshuaORCID, Jimenez Jose-LuisORCID, Crawford James, Diskin GlennORCID, Moore RichardORCID, Hair Johnathan, Huey GregORCID, Rollins Andrew, Dibb Jack, Zhang Xiaoyang
Abstract
Abstract. The latest operational National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC)
has been advanced to use the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model
(version 5.3.1) with the CB6r3 (Carbon Bond 6 revision 3) AERO7 (version 7 of the
aerosol module) chemical mechanism and is driven by the Finite-Volume
Cubed-Sphere (FV3) Global Forecast System, version 16 (GFSv16). This update
has been accomplished via the development of the meteorological preprocessor,
NOAA-EPA Atmosphere–Chemistry Coupler (NACC), adapted from the existing
Meteorology–Chemistry Interface Processor (MCIP). Differing from the
typically used Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) CMAQ system in the air
quality research community, the interpolation-based NACC can use various
meteorological outputs to drive the CMAQ model (e.g., FV3-GFSv16), even though they are
on different grids. In this study, we compare and evaluate GFSv16-CMAQ and
WRFv4.0.3-CMAQ using observations over the contiguous United States (CONUS)
in summer 2019 that have been verified with surface meteorological and AIRNow observations.
During this period, the Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments
and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) field campaign was performed, and we compare the
two models with airborne measurements from the NASA DC-8 aircraft. The
GFS-CMAQ and WRF-CMAQ systems show similar performance overall with some
differences for certain events, species and regions. The GFSv16 meteorology
tends to have a stronger diurnal variability in the planetary boundary layer
height (higher during daytime and lower at night) than WRF over the US
Pacific coast, and it also predicted lower nighttime 10 m winds. In summer
2019, the GFS-CMAQ system showed better surface ozone (O3) than WRF-CMAQ at night
over the CONUS domain; however, the models' fine particulate matter (PM2.5) predictions showed mixed
verification results: GFS-CMAQ yielded better mean biases but poorer
correlations over the Pacific coast. These results indicate that using
global GFSv16 meteorology with NACC to directly drive CMAQ via
interpolation is feasible and yields reasonable results compared to the
commonly used WRF approach.
Funder
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference69 articles.
1. Appel, K. W., Bash, J. O., Fahey, K. M., Foley, K. M., Gilliam, R. C., Hogrefe, C., Hutzell, W. T., Kang, D., Mathur, R., Murphy, B. N., Napelenok, S. L., Nolte, C. G., Pleim, J. E., Pouliot, G. A., Pye, H. O. T., Ran, L., Roselle, S. J., Sarwar, G., Schwede, D. B., Sidi, F. I., Spero, T. L., and Wong, D. C.: The Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model versions 5.3 and 5.3.1: system updates and evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2867–2897, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2867-2021, 2021. 2. Arakawa, A. and Lamb, V.: Computational design of the basic dynamical
processes of the UCLA general circulation model, Meth. Comput.
Phys., 17, 173–265, 1977. 3. Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Tonnesen, G. S., Hutzell, W., Pye, H. O. T., Beaver,
M. R., Pouliot, G., and Pierce, T.: Contribution of regional-scale fire events
to ozone and PM2.5 air quality estimated by photochemical modeling
approaches, Atmos. Environ., 140, 539–554,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032, 2016. 4. Briggs, G. A.: A Plume Rise Model Compared with Observations, Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, 15, 433–438,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1965.10468404, 1965. 5. Byun, D. and Schere, K. L.: Review of the governing equations, computational
algorithms, and other components of the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) modeling system, Appl. Mech. Rev., 59, 51–77, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2128636, 2006.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|