Geoscientific Model Development
www.geosci-model-dev.net
1991-959X
1991-9603
3
1
2010
10.5194/gmd-3-169-2010
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/3/169/2010/
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/3/169/2010/gmd-3-169-2010.html
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/3/169/2010/gmd-3-169-2010.pdf
169
188
2010-02-23
Sensitivity of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 results for the eastern United States to MM5 and WRF meteorological drivers
K. W. Appel
appel.wyat@epa.gov
S. J. Roselle
R. C. Gilliam
J. E. Pleim
Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, National Exposure Research, Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 27711, USA
This paper presents a comparison of the operational performances of two
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 simulations that utilize
input data from the 5th-generation Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the
Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) meteorological models. Two sets of
CMAQ model simulations were performed for January and August 2006. One set
utilized MM5 meteorology (MM5-CMAQ) and the other utilized WRF meteorology
(WRF-CMAQ), while all other model inputs and options were kept the same. For
January, predicted ozone (O<sub>3</sub>) mixing ratios were higher in the
Southeast and lower Mid-west regions in the WRF-CMAQ simulation, resulting
in slightly higher bias and error as compared to the MM5-CMAQ simulations.
The higher predicted O<sub>3</sub> mixing ratios are attributed to less dry
deposition of O<sub>3</sub> in the WRF-CMAQ simulation due to differences in the
calculation of the vegetation fraction between the MM5 and WRF models. The
WRF-CMAQ results showed better performance for particulate sulfate
(SO<sub>4</sub><sup>2−</sup>), similar performance for nitrate (NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>), and
slightly worse performance for nitric acid (HNO<sub>3</sub>), total carbon (TC)
and total fine particulate (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) mass than the corresponding MM5-CMAQ
results. For August, predictions of O<sub>3</sub> were notably higher in the
WRF-CMAQ simulation, particularly in the southern United States, resulting
in increased model bias. Concentrations of predicted particulate
SO<sub>4</sub><sup>2−</sup> were lower in the region surrounding the Ohio Valley and
higher along the Gulf of Mexico in the WRF-CMAQ simulation, contributing to
poorer model performance. The primary causes of the differences in the
MM5-CMAQ and WRF-CMAQ simulations appear to be due to differences in the
calculation of wind speed, planetary boundary layer height, cloud cover and
the friction velocity (<I>u</I><sub>∗</sub>) in the MM5 and WRF model simulations,
while differences in the calculation of vegetation fraction and several
other parameters result in smaller differences in the predicted CMAQ model
concentrations. The performance for SO<sub>4</sub><sup>2−</sup>, NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup> and
NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> wet deposition was similar for both simulations for January
and August.
Appel, K. W., Bhave, P. V., Gilliland, A. B., Sarwar, G., and Roselle, S. J.: Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance; Part II – particulate matter, Atmos. Environ., 42, 6057–6066, 2008.
Appel, K. W., Gilliland, A. B., Sarwar, G., and Gilliam, R. C.: Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance: Part I – Ozone, Atmos. Environ., 41, 9603–9615, 2007.
Appel, K. W. and Gilliam, R. C.: Overview of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET), 7th Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, http://www.cmascenter.org/conference/2008/agenda.cfm, 6–8 October 2008.
Byun, D. W. 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., 55, 51–77, 2006.
Carlton, A. M. G., Bhave, P. V., Napelenok, S. L., Pinder, R. W., Sarwar, G., Pouliot, G. A., Edney, E. O., and Houyoux, M.: Improved Treatment of Secondary Organic Aerosols in CMAQ, Environ. Sci. Technol., submitted, 2010.
de Meij, A., Gzella, A., Cuvelier, C., Thunis, P., Bessagnet, B., Vinuesa, J. F., Menut, L., and Kelder, H. M.: The impact of MM5 and WRF meteorology over complex terrain on CHIMERE model calculations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 6611–6632, 2009.
Deng, A., Stauffer, D. R., Dudhia, J., Hunter, G. K., and Bruyere, C.: WRF-ARW analysis nudging update and future development plan. 9th Annual WRF Users' Workshop, Boulder, CO, http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/workshops/WS2008/abstracts/1-06.pdf, 23–27 June 2008.
Dudhia, J.: Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model, J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 3077–3107, 1989.
ENVIRON: User's Guide to the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) Version 5.10, ENVIRON International Corporation, 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, California 94998, available at http://www.camx.com/files/CAMxUserGuide_v5.10.pdf, 2009.
Foley, K. M., Roselle, S. J., Appel, K. W., Bhave, P. V., Pleim, J. E., Otte, T. L., Mathur, R., Sarwar, G., Young, J. O., Gilliam, R. C., Nolte, C. G., Kelly, J. T., Gilliland, A. B., and Bash, J. O.: Incremental testing of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 2, 1245–1297, 2009.
Fulton, R. A., Breidenbach, J. P., Seo, D. J., Miller, D. A., and O'Bannon, T.: The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm, Wea. Forecasting, 13, 377–395, 1998.
Gilliam, R. C. and Pleim, J. E.: Performance assessment of new land-surface and planetary boundary layer physics in the WRF-ARW, J. Appl. Meteor. Clim., doi:10.1175/2009JAMC2126.1, 2010.
Grell, G. A., Dudhia, A. J., and Stauffer, D. R.: A description of the Fifth-Generation PennState/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-398+STR. Available at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/doc1.html, 1994.
Jiang, W., Smyth, S., Giroux, E., Roth, H., and Yin, D.: Differences between CMAQ fine mode particle and PM2.5 concentrations and their impact on model performance evaluation in the lower Fraser valley, Atmos. Environ., 40, 4973–4985, 2006.
Kain, J. S.: The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: An update, J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 170–181, 2004.
Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S. A.: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmosphere: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the long-wave, J. Geophys. Res., 102(D14), 16663–16682, 1997.
Otte, T. L.: The impact of nudging in the meteorological model for retrospective air quality simulations. Part I: Evaluation against national observations networks, J. Appl. Meteor. Clim., 47, 1853–1867, 2008.
Otte, T. L., Pouliot, G., Pleim, J. E., Young, J. O., Schere, K. L., Wong, D. C., Lee, P. C. S., Tsidulko, M., McQueen, J. T., Davidson, P., Mathur, R., Chuang, H. Y., DiMego, G., and Seaman, N. L.: Linking the Eta model with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system to build a national air quality forecasting system, Wea. Forecasting, 20, 367–384, 2005.
Pleim, J. E. and Xiu, A.: Development and testing of a surface flux and planetary boundary layer model for application in mesoscale models, J. Appl. Meteor., 34, 16–32, 1995.
Pleim, J. E. and Xiu, A.: Development of a Land-surface Model. Part II: Data Assimilation, J. Appl. Meteor., 42, 1811–1822, 2003.
Pleim, J. E.: A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: model description and testing, J. Appl. Meteor. Clim., 46, 1383–1395, 2007a.
Pleim, J. E.: A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part II: application and evaluation in a mesoscale meteorological model, J. Appl. Meteor. Clim., 46, 1396–1409, 2007b.
Reisner, J., Rasmussen, R. M., and Bruintjes, R. T.: Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter storms using the MM5 mesoscale model, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 124, 1071–1107, 1998.
Seo, D. J.: Real-time estimation of rainfall fields using rain gauge data under fractional coverage conditions, J. Hydrol., 208, 25–36, 1998a.
Seo, D. J.: Real-time estimation of rainfall fields using radar rainfall and rain gauge data, J. Hydrol., 208, 37–52, 1998b.
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., Huang, X-Y, Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech Note NCAR/TN 475 STR, 125 pp, available from UCAR Communications, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, 2008.
Smyth, S. C., Yin, D., Roth, H., Jiang, W., Moran, M. D., and Crevier, L. P.: The impact of GEM and MM5 modeled meteorological conditions on CMAQ air quality modeling results in Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States, J. Appl. Meteor. Clim., 45, 1525–1541, 2006.
Stauffer, D. R., Seaman, N. L., and Binkowski, F. S.: Use of four-dimensional data assimilation in a limited-area mesoscale model. Part II: Effects of data assimilation within the planetary boundary layer, Mon. Weather Rev., 119, 734–754, 1991.
Thompson, G., Rasmussen, R. M., and Manning, K.: Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part I: Description and sensitivity analysis, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 519–542, 2004.
Xiu, A. and Pleim, J. E.: Development of a land-surface model. Part I: application in a mesoscale meteorological model, J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 192–209, 2001.
Yarwood, G., Roa, S., Yocke, M., and Whitten, G.: Updates to the carbon bond chemical mechanism: CBo5. Final report to the US EPA, RT-0400675, available at http://www.camx.com, 2005.