SLIDE 1
Modeling Background Ozone Concentrations in the UGRB During February 2008
July 11, 2013
- Overview of Boundary Conditions
- QA and Sensitivity Tests
- Results
- Conclusions
Modeling Background Ozone Concentrations in the UGRB During - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Modeling Background Ozone Concentrations in the UGRB During - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Modeling Background Ozone Concentrations in the UGRB During February 2008 July 11, 2013 Outline Overview of Boundary Conditions QA and Sensitivity Tests Results Conclusions 2 Boundary Conditions (BCs) Overview
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
- Extracted from the global
GEOS-Chem model for this project
- Defined at four lateral
boundaries
- Zero gradient at top
- Provides continuous inflow
- f background
concentrations into the 36- km domain
Boundary Conditions (BCs) Overview
3
southern boundary northern boundary eastern boundary western boundary
SLIDE 4
Example of BC Transport on 36-km Domain (CMAQ)
4
SLIDE 5
- Needed ‘raw’ GEOS-Chem output
to match WRF vertical layers
- GEOS-Chem with dynamic
tropopause was being run by EPA ORD
– GEOS-Chem output for year 2008 provided by EPA ORD – Used EPA program to convert GEOS- Chem output to CMAQ-ready files – GEOS-Chem run still new, so extensive QA not conducted
Project Specifics
5
Illustration from http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/modeling_schematic.html
SLIDE 6
- QA model-ready BC files
– Reasonable ozone profiles and concentration magnitudes – Confirm that both CMAQ and CAMx have similar BC ozone profiles
- Conduct tests to assess amount of ozone transported to
Sublette County
– Run ozone in tracer mode for both models – Tracer mode means no sources, no chemistry, no deposition – transport only – Tagged ozone tracer both horizontally (north, south, east and west) and vertically
Description of QA and BC Tests
6
SLIDE 7
Possible Stratospheric Intrusion Events?
7
SLIDE 8
Vertical Binning (note vertical scale)
8 L3 (20-25) L2 (16-19) L1 (1-15) L4 (26-28) L5 (29-31) L6 (32-36)
1 km 2 km 5 km 7.5 km 10.5 km
SLIDE 9
Comparison of Obs to PGM Tracers at 36-km
9 Note: 1) stabilization period for is ~ 7 days 2) both PGM models track well at 36-km
SLIDE 10
Comparison of Obs to PGM Tracers at 36-km
10
SLIDE 11
Comparison of Obs to PGM Tracers at 36-km
11
SLIDE 12
Differences in Transport on 36-km Domain
12
SLIDE 13
Inter-Domain Comparison of CMAQ Ozone Tracers
13
SLIDE 14
Inter-Domain Comparison of CAMx BCs at Boulder – by Boundary
14
36-km Domain 1.33-km Domain
Note: O3W means ozone from the western boundary, etc.
SLIDE 15
Diagnoses of 1.33 km Concentrations at Boulder – by Level
15
Note: L1 means level 1, etc. as defined on slide 3
SLIDE 16
Diagnoses of 1.33 km Concentrations at Boulder – by Level
16
Note: L1 means level 1, etc. as defined on slide 3
SLIDE 17
Diagnoses of 1.33 km Concentrations at Boulder – by Level
17
Note: O3W03 means western boundary, level 3, etc.
SLIDE 18
- Both models produce similar ozone values in Sublette
County (magnitude and timing)
- Ozone tracer values seem consistent with the order of
magnitude of the observations
- Consistency among all domains
- BC concentrations tend to come from western and
northern boundaries
- BC concentrations tend to come from levels 2 and 3 (i.e.,