ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2727-0954
Current Organisation
Florida State University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 20-10-2021
DOI: 10.5194/ACP-21-15663-2021
Abstract: Abstract. We present in this technical note the research protocol for phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). This research initiative is ided into two activities, collectively having three goals: (i) to define the current state of the science with respect to representations of wet and especially dry deposition in regional models, (ii) to quantify the extent to which different dry deposition parameterizations influence retrospective air pollutant concentration and flux predictions, and (iii) to identify, through the use of a common set of detailed diagnostics, sensitivity simulations, model evaluation, and reduction of input uncertainty, the specific causes for the current range of these predictions. Activity 1 is dedicated to the diagnostic evaluation of wet and dry deposition processes in regional air quality models (described in this paper), and Activity 2 to the evaluation of dry deposition point models against ozone flux measurements at multiple towers with multiyear observations (to be described in future submissions as part of the special issue on AQMEII4). The scope of this paper is to present the scientific protocols for Activity 1, as well as to summarize the technical information associated with the different dry deposition approaches used by the participating research groups of AQMEII4. In addition to describing all common aspects and data used for this multi-model evaluation activity, most importantly, we present the strategy devised to allow a common process-level comparison of dry deposition obtained from models using sometimes very different dry deposition schemes. The strategy is based on adding detailed diagnostics to the algorithms used in the dry deposition modules of existing regional air quality models, in particular archiving diagnostics specific to land use–land cover (LULC) and creating standardized LULC categories to facilitate cross-comparison of LULC-specific dry deposition parameters and processes, as well as archiving effective conductance and effective flux as means for comparing the relative influence of different pathways towards the net or total dry deposition. This new approach, along with an analysis of precipitation and wet deposition fields, will provide an unprecedented process-oriented comparison of deposition in regional air quality models. Ex les of how specific dry deposition schemes used in participating models have been reduced to the common set of comparable diagnostics defined for AQMEII4 are also presented.
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 12-05-2021
DOI: 10.5194/ACP-2021-313
Abstract: Abstract. We present in this technical note the research protocol for Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). This research initiative is ided in two activities, collectively having three goals: (i) to define the current state of the science with respect to representations of wet and especially dry deposition in regional models, (ii) to quantify the extent to which different dry deposition parameterizations influence retrospective air pollutant concentration and flux predictions, and (iii) to identify, through the use of a common set of detailed diagnostics, sensitivity simulations, model evaluation, and reducing input uncertainty, the specific causes for the current range of these predictions. Activity 1 is dedicated to the diagnostic evaluation of wet and dry deposition processes in regional air quality models (described in this paper), and Activity 2 to the evaluation of dry deposition point models against ozone flux measurements at multiple towers with multiyear observations (Part 2). The scope of these papers is to present the scientific protocols for AQMEII4, as well to summarize the technical information associated with the different dry deposition approaches used by the participating research groups of AQMEII4. In addition to describing all common aspects and data used for this multi-model evaluation activity, most importantly, we present the strategy devised to allow a common process-level comparison of dry deposition obtained from models using sometimes very different dry deposition schemes. The strategy is based on adding detailed diagnostics to the algorithms used in the dry deposition modules of existing regional air quality models, in particular archiving land use/land cover (LULC)-specific diagnostics and creating standardized LULC categories to facilitate cross-comparison of LULC-specific dry deposition parameters and processes, as well as archiving effective conductance and effective flux as means for comparing the relative influence of different pathways towards the net or total dry deposition. This new approach, along with an analysis of precipitation and wet deposition fields, will provide an unprecedented process-oriented comparison of deposition in regional air-quality models. Ex les of how specific dry deposition schemes used in participating models have been reduced to the common set of comparable diagnostics defined for AQMEII4 are also presented.
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Date: 20-08-2022
DOI: 10.1029/2022JD036650
Abstract: We analyze the effects of the diurnal cycle of fire emissions (DCFE) and plume rise on U.S. air quality using the MUSICAv0 (Multi‐Scale Infrastructure for Chemistry and Aerosols Version 0) model during the FIREX‐AQ (Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality) and WE‐CAN (Western wildfire Experiment for Cloud chemistry, Aerosol absorption and Nitrogen) field c aigns. To include DCFE in the model, we employ two approaches: a DCFE climatology and DCFE derived from a satellite fire radiative power product. We also implemented two sets of plume‐rise climatologies, and two plume‐rise parameterizations. We evaluate the model performance with airborne measurements, U.S. EPA Air Quality System surface measurements, and satellite products. Overall, including plume rise improves model agreement with observations such as aircraft observations of CO and NO x for FIREX‐AQ and WE‐CAN. Applying DCFE also improves model performance, such as for surface PM 2.5 in fire‐impacted regions. The impact of plume rise is larger than the impact of DCFE. Plume rise can greatly enhance modeled long‐range transport of fire‐emitted pollutants. The simulations with plume‐rise parameterizations generally perform better than the simulations with plume‐rise climatologies during FIREX‐AQ, but not for WE‐CAN. The 2019 Williams Flats Fire case study demonstrates that DCFE and plume rise change fire impacts because fire emissions are subject to different meteorology and chemistry when emitted at different times of a day and altitudes. Moreover, DCFE and plume rise also impact local‐to‐regional meteorology and chemical reaction rates. DCFE and plume rise will be included in future MUSICA versions.
No related grants have been discovered for Christopher Holmes.