Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang Gao University of Tennessee Daniel Jacob, Loretta Mickley and...
-
Upload
caroline-mcbride -
Category
Documents
-
view
281 -
download
0
Transcript of Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang Gao University of Tennessee Daniel Jacob, Loretta Mickley and...
Joshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang GaoJoshua Fu, Yun-Fat Lam* and Yang GaoUniversity of TennesseeUniversity of Tennessee
Daniel Jacob , Loretta Mickley and Shiliang Wu Daniel Jacob , Loretta Mickley and Shiliang Wu Harvard UniversityHarvard University
Oct 20, 2009
The effects of Climate Change to the The effects of Climate Change to the Future Air Quality in United StatesFuture Air Quality in United States
Joshua Fu , Yun-Fat Lam, University of TennesseeUniversity of TennesseeDaniel Jacob (PI), Loretta Mickley, Harvard UniversityHarvard University
John Seinfeld, California Institute of TechnologyCalifornia Institute of Technology David Streets, Argonne National LabArgonne National Lab
David Rind, GISS/NASAGISS/NASA
GLOBAL CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION (GCAP)GLOBAL CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION (GCAP)
SOURCE: GCAP group
GCAP: How will global change affect U.S. air quality
UT
Effect of Global Warming in Effect of Global Warming in GISS General Circulation ModelGISS General Circulation Model
Goddard Institute for Space Studies GCM: 9 layers, 4ox5o horizontal grid, CO2 + other greenhouse gases increased yearly from 2000 to 2050.
Carbon Monoxide: COsource: present-day anthropogenic
emissionssink: CO + present-day OH fields
Black Carbon: BCsource: present-day anthropogenic
emissionssink: rainout
1950 spin-up (ocean adjusts) 2000 increasing A1 greenhouse gas 2050
Timeline
spin up 1995-2002
2045-2052{
+2o C Temp change
July global mean temperature
Mickley et al., 2004Mickley et al., 2004
SOURCE: GCAP group
Effect of Climate Change on Regional StagnationEffect of Climate Change on Regional Stagnation
Pollution episodes double in duration in 2050 climate due to decreasing frequency of cyclones ventilating the eastern U.S; this decrease is an expected consequence of greenhouse warming.
GISS GCM 2’ simulations for 2050 vs. present-day climate using pollution tracers with constant emissions
Mickley et al. [GRL 2004]
Mid-latitudes cyclones tracking across southern Canada are the main drivers of northern U.S. ventilation
2045-2052
1995-2002
summer
Northeast U.S.CO tracer
SOURCE: GCAP group
Climatological Fact Climatological Fact
Annual number of surface cyclones and anticylones over North America
Cyclone frequency at 30o-60oN
cyclones
anticyclones
1000
100
500
1950 1980
Agee [1991]
McCabe et al. [2001]
SOURCE: GCAP group
DECREASE IN FREQUENCY OF MID-LATITUDE DECREASE IN FREQUENCY OF MID-LATITUDE CYCLONES OVER PAST 50 YEARSCYCLONES OVER PAST 50 YEARS
Global model vs. Regional ModelGlobal model vs. Regional Model
Atmospheric component
Sea Ice component
Ocean component
Land surface model
component
Climate
Air Quality, Heat waves, Flooding, Drought, Human Health
Missing Missing aerosol aerosol
feed back feed back
Global ModelGlobal Model Regional ModelRegional Model
Two-ways coupled climate and chemistry
One-way coupled climate and chemistry
Direct Direct affect solar affect solar radiationradiation
Significant of Regional ModelSignificant of Regional Model
• Resolution : down to 1 x 1 km– Taking advantages of detail geographical
information in meteorology modeling, as well as highly reliable emission inventories for ozone and aerosol modeling
• All the equations in regional model are designed to use in fine resolution conditions– Scalability issue in global model
• Regional/urban climate and air quality conditions can be simulated to provide information for local and regional planning – It has better implication in model outputs
Development of downscaling approachDevelopment of downscaling approach
– Analysis of 2000-2050 trends in air
pollution meteorology
– Development of GISS/GEOS-Chem interface
– Development of GISS/MM5 interface
– Development of future emission inventories for carbonaceous aerosols
– Application of GISS/GEOS-Chem to 2000-2050 trends in ozone and PM (IPCC A1B scenario)
– Statistical projection of 2000-2050 ozone trends
GISS GCM 31950-2050transient climate
simulation
Interface Developed
Greenhouse gases
GEOS-Chem CTM
global O3-PM-Hgsimulation
MM5 mesoscaledynamics simulation
CMAQO3-PM-Hgsimulation
met. input
boundaryconditions
2050 vs. 2000
climate
IPCC scenarios
and derivedemissions
ozone and PMSMOKE derived
emissions
GISS GCM 31950-2050transient climate
simulation
Interface Developed
Greenhouse gases
GEOS-Chem CTM
global O3-PM-Hgsimulation
MM5 mesoscaledynamics simulation
CMAQO3-PM-Hgsimulation
met. input
boundaryconditions
2050 vs. 2000
climate
IPCC scenarios
and derivedemissions
ozone and PMSMOKE derived
emissions
ObjectiveObjective
Investigate the future air quality in United States for Investigate the future air quality in United States for year 2050 using regional air quality model, CMAQ & year 2050 using regional air quality model, CMAQ & MM5MM5
Study the effect of global warming in regional scale Study the effect of global warming in regional scale for both climate and air qualityfor both climate and air quality
Examine the effect of change of anthropogenic Examine the effect of change of anthropogenic emissions emissions
Determine the emission reduction offsets required Determine the emission reduction offsets required to maintain NAAQSto maintain NAAQS
Models:Models:
Global ModelsGlobal Models
GISS-GCM III (GISS-GCM III (GISS/NASA)GISS/NASA)GEOS-Chem IV (HARVARD UNIVERSITY)GEOS-Chem IV (HARVARD UNIVERSITY)
Regional ModelsRegional Models
MM5 and WRF (NCAR)MM5 and WRF (NCAR) CMAQ 4.6 (EPA and others)CMAQ 4.6 (EPA and others)
Interface Program Development and Regional Interface Program Development and Regional Modeling (UT)Modeling (UT)
GISS2MM5 => MM5 (UT)GISS2MM5 => MM5 (UT) GEOS-Chem => CMAQ (UT)GEOS-Chem => CMAQ (UT)
Model ConfigurationsModel Configurations
GISS general circulation model IIIGISS general circulation model III
Global climate model Provide initial guess
values for MM5 (Both current and future climate conditions - e.g. 2000 and 2050)
4° x 5° horizontal resolution
30 vertical sigma/pressure layers
Global Model ConfigurationsGlobal Model Configurations
Climate ModelClimate Model
GEOS-Chem IVGEOS-Chem IV
Global chemistry model Provide initial and boundary
conditions for CMAQ 2° x 2.5° horizontal resolution 28 vertical sigma/pressure
layers Take into account of volcanic
events, wild fire, lightning and dust storm across the globe
Chemistry ModelChemistry Model
MM5MM5
Regional climate model
Terrain followed sigma
coordination
Resolution: 108km and nest
down to 36km (can be down to 1
km)
43 vertical sigma/pressure layers
Preprocessor: TERRAIN,
REGRID, LITTLE_R, INTERPF and
NESTDOWN
Regional Model ConfigurationsRegional Model Configurations
Climate ModelClimate Model
CMAQ 4.6CMAQ 4.6
14 layers (from the MM5 sigma levels)
36 km horizontal resolution (in this study)
ICON and BCON from GEOS-Chem from 3 hrs to one hour average
GISS/MM5 meteorological Inputs
Input emission is compatible with 2001 EPA National Emission Inventory
Chemistry ModelChemistry Model
Example Results of MM5 Outputs from GISSExample Results of MM5 Outputs from GISS
GISS surface wind and temperature Inputs
Year 2000
Year 2050
• Source:L. Mickley (Harvard) 108 km - CONUS108 km - CONUS 36 km - CONUS36 km - CONUS
GISS
MM5 MM5
GISS Vs. MM5 GISS Vs. MM5 A
vera
ge
d Z
on
al
Te
mp
era
ture
(K
)
288290292294296298300302304
Time (hour)
6/1 6/6 6/11 6/16 6/21 6/26 7/1
288290292294296298300302304
GISS MM5-108km MM5-36km
YEAR 2000
YEAR 2050
GISS Vs. MM5-108km: RMSE = 0.18 KGISS Vs. MM5-36km: RMSE = 0.08 K
GISS Vs. MM5-108km: RMSE = 0.27 K
GISS Vs. MM5-36km: RMSE = 0.08 K
GISS Vs. MM5 (JJAS)GISS Vs. MM5 (JJAS)
NE
SE
MidN
297 297300 300 298
302298 298
302 300 299304
297 298300 301 299 303
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
MidN NE SE MidN NE SE
2000 2050
zona
l tem
pera
ture
(K)
GISS MM5-108km MM5-36km
Average Temperature (K)
Domain GISSMM5-
108kmMM5-36km
MidN 2.5 2.6 3.2NE 1.2 1.1 0.6SE 2.3 2.3 3
2050 - 2000
MAX & AVG Temperature
GISS Vs. MM5 (JJAS)GISS Vs. MM5 (JJAS)
Temperature RMSE is below 0.4 K. And the mean bias is close to 0.1 K << 0.5 (benchmark)
Wind speed RMSE is less than 0.2 m/s << 2 m/s (benchmark). For the mean bias, the value is 0.1 m/s
Wind direction RMSE is less than 20° and mean bias is less than 1 ° << 10 °
MidN NE SE
Win
d S
pee
d R
MS
E
(m/s
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
MidN NE SE
Win
d d
irec
tio
n R
MS
E
(
deg
ree)
0
20
40
60
80
MidN NE SE
MidN NE SE
Tem
per
atu
re R
MS
E
(
K)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
MidN NE SE
MidN NE SE
GISS Vs. MM5-108km GISS Vs. MM5-36km
CMAQ Simulations ScenariosCMAQ Simulations Scenarios
2000 climate with 2000 emission
2050 climate with 2000 emission
2000 climate with 2050 emission
2050 climate with 2050 emission
Climate/Emission Climate/Emission ContributionsContributions
Study period: June 1 to September 1 (Ozone season)
IPCC NOx IPCC NOx Emission Emission ScenarioScenario
X
2000 NO2000 NO22
2050 NO2050 NO22Emission ProjectionEmission Projection
Maximum Ozone ConcentrationMaximum Ozone Concentration
2000climate-2000emi 2050climate-2000emi
2000climate-2050emi 2050climate-2050emi
warmer
Fu et al. 2008 Emission has more effect than climate change on pollution events
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MidN NE SE MidN NE SE MidN NE SE MidN NE SE
2001 2001_fut 2050 2050_fut
Ozo
ne
co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
pp
bv
)
GEOS-Chem CMAQ
175 170
130140
149
125142
203
162
120
177
145
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
MidN NE SE MidN NE SE MidN NE SE MidN NE SE
2001 2001_fut 2050 2050_fut
Ozo
ne c
on
cen
trati
on
(p
pb
v)
GEOS-Chem CMAQ
CMAQ Simulations – Output (JJAS)CMAQ Simulations – Output (JJAS)
MAXIMUM OZONE
AVERAGE OZONE
Source: Harvard University
GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS)GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS)
0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.999.99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NE
0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.90
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.010.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.999.990
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.999.99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20002000_fut20502050_fut
SEMidN
CM
AQ
GE
OS
-Ch
em
Cumulative Probability (%)
MD
A8
Ozo
ne C
once
ntra
tion
(ppb
)
92 94 96 98 100
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
40 60 80 100
40
50
60
70
80
90
NE
40 50 60 70 80 90 10040
50
60
70
80
90
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
40
50
60
70
80
90
92 94 96 98 10060
65
70
75
80
85
90
92 94 96 98 100
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
20002000_fut20502050_fut
SEMidN
CM
AQ
GE
OS
-Ch
em
Cumulative Probability (%)
GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS)GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS)
GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) – MidNGEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) – MidN
92 94 96 98 100
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
0 20 40 60 80 1002
3
4
5
6
7
8
MidN
Daily Maximum avg 8-hr O3 (ppb) Temperature (K) Wind Speed (m/s)
0 20 40 60 80 100300
305
310
315
320
20002050
Large difference in temperature
Small difference in wind speed
The CMAQ’s trend is similar as GEOS-Chem’s trend (Temperature dominated case)
20002000_fut20502050_fut
0 20 40 60 80 100300
305
310
315
320
NE
92 94 96 98 10060
65
70
75
80
85
90
Daily Maximum avg 8-hr O3 (ppb) Temperature (K) Wind Speed (m/s)
0 20 40 60 80 1002
3
4
5
6
7
8
2050 wind speed
2000 wind speed
GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) - NEGEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) - NE
Small difference in temperature
Small difference in wind speed
The CMAQ’s trend is not similar as GEOS-Chem’s trend (Emission domination case)
20002000_fut20502050_fut
Daily Maximum avg 8-hr O3 (ppb) Temperature (K) Wind Speed (m/s)
92 94 96 98 100
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
20002000_fut20502050_fut
0 20 40 60 80 100300
305
310
315
320
0 20 40 60 80 1002
3
4
5
6
7
8
2000 wind speed
2050 wind speed
GEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) – SEGEOS-Chem Vs. CMAQ (JJAS) – SE
Large difference in temperature
Large difference in wind speed
The CMAQ’s trend is not similar as GEOS-Chem’s trend (Cloud dominated case)
?? Why different from NE ??
• Global downscaling of GISS and GEOS-Chem have successfully performed with high confidence.
• The ozone trend (2050 – 2000) of GEOS-Chem and CMAQ are found to be quite difference, where GEOS-Chem is much more temperature driven (may due to the coarse resolution of meteorological data)
• In GEOS-Chem, climate change is a stronger factor than emission change for MidN and NE, but not showing in SE
• In CMAQ, only MidN have shown stronge climate change effect.
• Overall, the maximum zonal ozone concentration in 2050 is much higher than 2000. However, the probability of getting higher ozone may not higher. The convection and cloud cover have played important role on this issue.
RemarksRemarks
THANK YOU!
Average Aerosol (PMAverage Aerosol (PM2.52.5) Concentration) Concentration
BLACK CARBONBLACK CARBON SULFATE AEROSOLSULFATE AEROSOL
BLACK CARBON - AVERAGE (ug/m3)
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
Mid-West North-East South-East
2001met - 2001emi
2001met - 2050emi
2050met - 2001emi
2050met - 2050emi
SULFATE AEROSOL - AVERAGE (ug/m3)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Mid-West North-East South-East
2001met - 2001emi
2001met - 2050emi
2050met - 2001emi
2050met - 2050emi
Climate Effect
Emission Effect
Emission has more effect than climate change on pollution events ?
Climate change doesn’t effect South-East ?
USUS USUS