Advertisement

Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 137, Issue 2, pp 291–305 | Cite as

Evaluating the Effects of Radiative Forcing Feedback in Modelling Urban Ozone Air Quality in Portland, Oregon: Two-Way Coupled MM5–CMAQ Numerical Model Simulations

  • Haider Taha
  • David Sailor
Article

Abstract

We summarize an on-line coupled meteorological–emissions–photochemical modelling system that allows feedback from air-quality/chemistry to meteorology via radiative forcing. We focus on the radiative-forcing impacts (direct effects) of ozone. We present an application of the coupled modelling system to the episode of 23–31 July 1998 in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. Results suggest that the inclusion of radiative-forcing feedback produces small but accountable impacts. For this region and episode, stand-alone radiative transfer simulations, i.e., evaluating the effects of radiative forcing independently of changes in meteorology or emissions, suggest that a change of 1 ppb in ground-level ozone is approximately equivalent to a change of 0.017 W m−2 in radiative forcing. In on-line, coupled, three-dimensional simulations, where the meteorological dependencies are accounted for, domain-wide peak ozone concentrations were higher by 2–4 ppb (relative to a simulated peak of 119.4 ppb) when including the effects of radiative-forcing feedback. A scenario of 10% reduction in anthropogenic emissions produced slightly larger decreases in ozone, an additional 1 ppb in local-peak reductions, relative to scenarios without feedback.

Keywords

Air quality Meteorological numerical modelling On-line coupling Photochemical modelling Radiative forcing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baklanov A, Korsholm U (2007) On-line integrated meteorological and chemical transport modelling: advantages and prospective. In: 29th NATO/SPS international technical meeting on air pollution modeling and its application, 24–28 September 2007, University of Aveiro, Portugal, pp 21–34Google Scholar
  2. Baklanov A, Korsholm U, Mahura A, Petersen C, Gross A (2008) ENVIRO-HIRLAM: on-line coupled modeling of urban meteorology and air pollution. Adv Sci Res 2: 41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brieglieb BP, Minnis P, Ramanathan V, Harrison E (1986) Comparison of regional clear-sky albedos inferred from satellite observations and model computations. J Clim Appl Meteorol 25: 214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byun D, 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: 51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan CY, Chan LY, Zheng YG, Harris JM, Oltmans SJ, Christopher S (2001) Effects of 1997 Indonesian forest fires on tropospheric ozone enhancements, radiative forcing, and temperature change over the Hong Kong region. J Geophys Res 106: 14875–14885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DEQ: (1999) Oregon air quality data summaries. Department of Environmental Quality, State of Oregon,Google Scholar
  7. Dudhia J (1993) A non-hydrostatic version of the Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model: validation tests and simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold front. Mon Weather Rev 121: 1493–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert EE, Curry JA (1992) A parameterization of ice cloud optical properties for climate models. J Geophys Res 97: 3831–3836Google Scholar
  9. EPA (1999) Draft guidance on the use of models and other analyses in attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. Report EPA-454/R-99-004, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan H, Sailor DJ (2005) Modeling the impacts of anthropogenic heating on the urban climate of Philadelphia: a comparison of implementations in two PBL schemes. Atmos Environ 39: 73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forster PM, Shine KP (1997) Radiative forcing and temperature trends from stratospheric ozone changes. J Geophys Res 102: 10841–10855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fu L, Liou KN (1993) Parameterization of the radiative properties of cirrus clouds. J Atmos Sci 50: 2008–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grell GA, Dudhia J, Stauffer DR (1994) A description of the fifth generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN—398+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 122 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Grell GA, Emeis S, Stockwell WR, Schoenemeyer T, Forkel Michalakes RJ, Knoche R, Seidl W (2000) Application of a multiscale, coupled MM5/chemistry model to the complex terrain of the VOTALP valley campaign. Atmos Environ 34: 1435–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guenther AB, Zimmerman PR, Harley PC, Monson PK, Fall R (1993) Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability—model evaluations and sensitivity analyses. J Geophys Res 98: 12609–12617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu YX, Stamnes K (1993) An accurate parameterization of the radiative properties of water clouds suitable for use in climate models. J Clim 6: 728–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Janjic ZI (1994) The step-mountain eta coordinate model: further development of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulent closure schemes. Mon Weather Rev 122: 927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jin M, Shepherd JM, King MD (2005) Urban aerosols and their variations with clouds and rainfall: a case study for New York and Houston. J Geophys Res. doi: 10.1029/2004JD005081
  20. Key J (2001) Streamer user’s guide. Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  21. Key J, Schweiger AJ (1998) Tools for atmospheric radiative transfer: streamer and FluxNet. Comput Geosci 24: 443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kylling AK, Stamnes K, Tsay S-C (1995) A reliable and efficient two-stream algorithm for spherical radiative transfer: documentation of accuracy in realistic layered media. J Atmos Chem 21: 115–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naik V, Mauzerall D, Horowitz L, Scharzkopf MD, Ramaswamy V, Oppenheimer M (2005) Net radiative forcing due to changes in regional emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors. J Geophys Res 110: D24306. doi: 10.1029/2005JD005908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinto JO, Curry JA, Fairall CW (1997) Radiative characteristics of the Arctic atmosphere during spring as inferred from ground-based measurements. J Geophys Res 102: 6941–6952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pleim J, Young J, Wong D, Gilliam R, Otte T, Mathur R (2008) Two-way coupled meteorology and air quality modeling. In: Air pollution modeling and its application, vol XIX. Springer, pp 235–242. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8453-9
  26. Schmidt EO, Arduini RF, Wielicki BA, Stone RS, Tsay S-C (1995) Considerations for modeling thin cirrus effects via brightness temperature differences. J Appl Meteorol 34: 447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Semenza JC, Wilson DJ, Parra J, Bontempo B, Hart M, Sailor DJ, George LA (2008) Public perception and behavior change in relationship to hot weather and air pollution. Environ Res 107: 401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snell HE, Anderson GP, Wang J, Moncet J-L, Chetwybd JH, English SJ (1995) Validation of FASE and MODTRAN3: updates and comparisons with clear-sky measurements. In: SPIE conference 2578, Paris, France, 1995, pp 194–204Google Scholar
  29. Stamnes K, Tsay S-C, Wiscombe W, Jayaweera K (1988) Numerically stable algorithm for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in multiple scattering and emitting layered media. Appl Opt 27: 2502–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taha H (2008a) Meso-urban meteorological and photochemical modeling of heat island mitigation. Atmos Environ 42: 8795–8809. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.06.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taha H (2008b) Episodic performance and sensitivity of the urbanized MM5 (uMM5) to perturbations in surface properties in Houston TX. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 127: 193–218. doi: 10.1007/s10546-007-9258-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Takano Y, Liou KN (1989) Solar radiative transfer in cirrus clouds. Part I: Single-scattering and optical properties of hexagonal crystals. J Atmos Sci 46: 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toon OB, McKay CP, Ackerman TP (1989) Rapid calculations of radiative heating rates and photodissociation rates in inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. J Geophys Res 94: 16287–16301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsay S-C, Stamnes K, Jayaweera K (1989) Radiative energy budget in the cloudy and hazy Arctic. J Atmos Sci 46: 1002–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WMO (2008) Joint report of COST action 728 and GURME: overview of existing integrated (off-line and on-line) mesoscale meteorological and chemical transport modeling systems in Europe. World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Altostratus Inc.MartinezUSA
  2. 2.Mechanical and Materials Engineering DepartmentPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations