Abstract
In this study, we compare air quality over North America simulated by the C-IFS global model and the CMAQ regional model driven by boundary conditions from C-IFS against surface and upper air observations. Results indicate substantial differences in model performance for surface ozone between the two models. Above the boundary layer, differences are least pronounced in the free troposphere but increase in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. In addition, we also compare the impacts of perturbed emissions in East Asia and North America on air quality over North America simulated by CMAQ and C-IFS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Byun DW, Schere KL (2006) 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
Fiore AM et al (2009) Multimodel estimates of intercontinental source-receptor relationships for ozone pollution. J Geophys Res 114:D04301. doi:10.1029/2008JD010816
Flemming J et al (2015) Tropospheric chemistry in the integrated forecasting system of ECMWF. Geosci Model Dev 8:975–1003. doi:10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015
HTAP (2011) Hemispheric transport of air pollution 2010: Part A—ozone and particulate matter. Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, 304 pp, Sept 2011. ISBN 13: 9789211170436
Pouliot et al. (2015) Analysis of the emission inventories and model-ready emission datasets of Europe and North America for phase 2 of the AQMEII project. Atmos Env. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.10.061
Skamarock WC, Klemp JB (2007) A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for research and NWP applications. J Comp Phys 227(7):3465–3485 (Special issue on environmental modeling)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Question and Answer
Question and Answer
Questioner: P. Lee
Question: The vertical structure of the AQMEII is largely refined. At NOAA AQ forecasting team is learning what your team at EPA is doing carefully. With NOAA’s involvement in the recent DISCOVER-AQ measurement campaigns with flight and lidar, strata about PBL may be subject to shallow convection venting of pollutants from the PBL. Therefore NOAA’s forecasting system is now increasing from its current 22 layers to 35 layers. We intend to refine both the layers where shallow convection and tropospheric-stratospheric exchange may happen. We hope to learn and share our experience with the EPA team. On your sub-grid variability plot, the difference at the surface over California is standing out. I wonder if the emission harmonization still allows differences stemming from resolution differences.
Answer: We agree with your comment on the need to carefully consider the vertical resolution used in our model to adequately represent the dynamic processes affecting the vertical distribution of ozone. Differences in horizontal resolution likely are indeed the main contributor to the subgrid variability noticeable in urban areas, causing differences in both the dilution of primary emissions into the grid cell volume and the resulting non-linearities in the formation of secondary pollutants.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hogrefe, C. et al. (2016). Global and Regional Modeling of Long-Range Transport and Intercontinental Source-Receptor Linkages. In: Steyn, D., Chaumerliac, N. (eds) Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XXIV. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24478-5_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24478-5_40
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24476-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24478-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)