Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ... Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
5.2.1 MM5 Prognostic Meteorological Modeling The most recent version of the publicly available non‐hydrostatic version of MM5 (version 3.7.4) was used. The MM5 preprocessors pregrid, regrid, little_r, and interpf were used to develop initial and boundary conditions. Nine separate MM5 sensitivity tests were performed for the CTEX5 field experiment period as listed in Table 5‐1. As noted previously, for CTEX3 period no 80 km MM5 modeling was performed and historical 80 km MM4 data were used for the CTEX3 CALPUFF sensitivity tests. The MM5 modeling for this study was based on three vertical structures designed to replicate common vertical structures of meteorological modeling from the 1980’s to 2000’s with vertical definitions of 16, 33, and 43 layers. The MM5 vertical domain definition for the 33 and 43 layer MM5 sensitivity simulations are presented in both sigma and height coordinates in Tables 5‐2 and 5‐3. Topographic information for the MM5 system was developed using the NCAR and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) terrain databases. Vegetation type and land use information was developed using the most recent NCAR/PSU databases provided with the MM5 distribution [available at ftp://ftp.ucar.edu/mesouser]. Standard MM5 surface characteristics corresponding to each land use category were used. Four different grid configurations were defined for the MM5 sensitivity modeling. The first experiment (EXP1) was a baseline run using the horizontal and vertical configuration of MM4 simulations of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (similar to the original MM4 dataset published by the EPA). The baseline simulation uses a single domain (no nests) with a horizontal grid resolution of 80 km and 16 vertical levels. The baseline configuration used older physics options more consistent with physics options available at the time of publication of the original EPA MM4 dataset. Physics options include the Blackadar (BLKDR) Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) parameterization, Anthes‐Kuo (AK) convective parameterization, Dudhia Radiation (DRAD), Dudhia Simple Ice Microphysics (SIM), and a 5‐layer soil model (5LAYSOIL). The second MM5 experiment (EXP2) was designed to reflect common grid and physics configurations used in numerical weather modeling for air quality simulations in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. EXP2A through EXP2C used three nested domains (108, 36, and 12 km) with a 33 vertical layer vertical structure (Table 5‐2). Physics options include the Medium Range Forecast model (MRF) PBL parameterization, Kain‐Fritsch (KF) convective parameterization, rapid radiative transfer model (RRTM) radiation, SIM microphysics, and the 5LAYSOIL soil model. EXP2H is a variation of EXP2C, reflecting another common configuration of the period, but using the BLKDR PBL parameterization instead of the MRF PBL. The third MM5 experiment (EXP3) was designed to reflect the more recent advances in numerical weather modeling for air quality simulations, both in terms of grid configuration and physics options. These options are largely consistent with annual MM5 simulations conducted by the EPA and the Regional Haze Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). Consistent with EXP2, EXP3 uses three nested domains (108, 36, and 12 km). EXP3 uses the Pleim‐Xu (PX) PBL parameterization, the Kain‐Fritsch 2 (KF2) convective parameterization, DRAD radiation, and the Pleim‐Xu (PX) land surface model (LSM). A key facet in the MM5 sensitivity modeling was to measure the effectiveness of various four‐ dimensional data assimilation (FDDA) strategies on meteorological model performance and also determine the importance of assimilated fields in enhancing the performance of long range transport (LRT) model simulations. In EXP1 and EXP2 series, there are a minimum of three 69
MM5 runs, the first without FDDA (i.e., in forecasting mode), the second with three‐ dimensional analysis nudging above the PBL only, and the third using both three‐dimensional analysis nudging above the PBL and surface analysis nudging below the PBL. Nudging within the PBL was turned off for temperature and mixing ratio. Default nudging strengths were used for both three‐dimensional analysis and surface analysis nudging in these scenarios. In scenarios EXP2I and EXP2J, alternative data assimilation strategies were tested while keeping the three‐dimensional and surface analysis nudging. In EXP2I, the nudging strength was doubled. Observational nudging was turned on for EXP2J in addition to the nudging strengths used in EXP2I. The NCAR ds472.0 dataset was used to provide surface observations for the observational nudging. Although new MM5 meteorological modeling was performed for the scenarios in Table 5‐1 for the CTEX5 field experiment, for the CTEX3 field experiment the historical 80 km MM4 data was used for the 80 km MM5/MM4 scenarios and the FDDA sensitivity tests were not performed. Table 5‐1. Summary of CTEX5 MM5 sensitivity tests. design. Sensitivity Horizontal Vertical Physics FDDA Test Grid Layers Options Used EXP1A 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA EXP1B 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging EXP1C 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging EXP2A 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA EXP2B 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging EXP2C 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging EXP2F 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA EXP2G 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging EXP2H 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging EXP2I 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging FDDA x 2 strength EXP2J 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging FDDA x 2 strength Observational Nudging EXP4 108/36/12km 43 PXPBL, KF2, DRAD, R2, PXLSM Analysis Nudging Surface Analysis Nudging 4 km 4 km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging (EXP2H) Surface Analysis Nudging 70
- Page 55 and 56: Factor of α (FAα): FAα represent
- Page 57 and 58: 3.0 1980 GREAT PLAINS FIELD STUDY 3
- Page 59 and 60: compact discs, which were used to o
- Page 61 and 62: ILEVZI = 1 Layer of winds to use in
- Page 63 and 64: MCHEM = 0 No chemical transformatio
- Page 65 and 66: Table 3‐6. CALPUFF/CALMET experim
- Page 67 and 68: Table 3‐11. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitiv
- Page 69 and 70: evaluation studies and evaluate whe
- Page 71 and 72: Tables 3‐13 and Figures 3‐2 thr
- Page 73 and 74: 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
- Page 75 and 76: 30% 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30%
- Page 77 and 78: 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20%
- Page 79 and 80: 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐
- Page 81 and 82: The fitted Gaussian plume statistic
- Page 83 and 84: 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐40% ‐5
- Page 85 and 86: 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 300
- Page 87 and 88: 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% ‐60%
- Page 89 and 90: with APS, implementing the slug opt
- Page 91 and 92: the amount of time that the tracer
- Page 93 and 94: Figure 4‐1. CALPUFF/CALMET UTM mo
- Page 95 and 96: compact discs, which were used to o
- Page 97 and 98: Table 4‐4. CALPUFF parameters use
- Page 99 and 100: Table 4‐8. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitivi
- Page 101 and 102: the fitted Gaussian plume is not a
- Page 103 and 104: Figure 4‐2. Comparison of predict
- Page 105: Figure 5‐1. Location of Dayton an
- Page 109 and 110: Table 5‐3. MM5 sensitivity tests
- Page 111 and 112: Table 5‐6. Definition of the CALM
- Page 113 and 114: performance at the monitor location
- Page 115 and 116: 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 35% 3
- Page 117 and 118: 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% F
- Page 119 and 120: 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% E
- Page 121 and 122: 5.4.1.4 Comparison of CALPUFF CTEX3
- Page 123 and 124: 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.12 0 ‐0.12 16% 1
- Page 125 and 126: CTEX3 discussed in Section 5.4.1. A
- Page 127 and 128: CALPUFF sensitivity simulations are
- Page 129 and 130: 14. Across all the spatial statisti
- Page 131 and 132: sensitivity tests. The “B” seri
- Page 133 and 134: ‐0.1 ‐0.2 0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
- Page 135 and 136: 6.0 1994 EUROPEAN TRACER EXPERIMENT
- Page 137 and 138: Figure 6‐2a. Surface synoptic met
- Page 139 and 140: Figure 6‐3a. Distribution of the
- Page 141 and 142: 36 kilometers and the vertical stru
- Page 143 and 144: splitting flag near sunset (hour 17
- Page 145 and 146: experienced during the original ETE
- Page 147 and 148: 2 1 0 ‐1 ‐2 3 2 1 0 23‐Oct 23
- Page 149 and 150: 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figu
- Page 151 and 152: Figure 6‐9. Factor of Exceedance
- Page 153 and 154: eceiving a 0.0 score. Figure 6‐13
- Page 155 and 156: Table 6‐1. Summary of model ranki
MM5 runs, <strong>the</strong> first without FDDA (i.e., in forecasting mode), <strong>the</strong> second with three‐<br />
dimensional analysis nudging above <strong>the</strong> PBL only, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> third using both three‐dimensional<br />
analysis nudging above <strong>the</strong> PBL <strong>and</strong> surface analysis nudging below <strong>the</strong> PBL. Nudging within<br />
<strong>the</strong> PBL was turned <strong>of</strong>f for temperature <strong>and</strong> mixing ratio. Default nudging strengths were used<br />
for both three‐dimensional analysis <strong>and</strong> surface analysis nudging in <strong>the</strong>se scenarios.<br />
In scenarios EXP2I <strong>and</strong> EXP2J, alternative data assimilation strategies were tested while keeping<br />
<strong>the</strong> three‐dimensional <strong>and</strong> surface analysis nudging. In EXP2I, <strong>the</strong> nudging strength was<br />
doubled. Observational nudging was turned on for EXP2J in addition to <strong>the</strong> nudging strengths<br />
used in EXP2I. The NCAR ds472.0 dataset was used to provide surface observations for <strong>the</strong><br />
observational nudging.<br />
Although new MM5 meteorological modeling was performed for <strong>the</strong> scenarios in Table 5‐1 for<br />
<strong>the</strong> CTEX5 field experiment, for <strong>the</strong> CTEX3 field experiment <strong>the</strong> historical 80 km MM4 data was<br />
used for <strong>the</strong> 80 km MM5/MM4 scenarios <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> FDDA sensitivity tests were not performed.<br />
Table 5‐1. Summary <strong>of</strong> CTEX5 MM5 sensitivity tests. design.<br />
Sensitivity Horizontal Vertical<br />
Physics<br />
FDDA<br />
Test Grid Layers<br />
Options<br />
Used<br />
EXP1A 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA<br />
EXP1B 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP1C 80 km 16 BLKDR, AK, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP2A 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA<br />
EXP2B 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP2C 108/36/12km 33 MRF, KF, RRTM, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP2F 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL No FDDA<br />
EXP2G 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP2H 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
EXP2I 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
FDDA x 2 strength<br />
EXP2J 108/36/12km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
FDDA x 2 strength<br />
Observational Nudging<br />
EXP4 108/36/12km 43 PXPBL, KF2, DRAD, R2, PXLSM Analysis Nudging<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
4 km 4 km 43 BLKDR, KF, DRAD, SIM, 5LAYSOIL Analysis Nudging<br />
(EXP2H)<br />
Surface Analysis Nudging<br />
70
Change language