Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The latest operational National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC) has been advanced to use the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model (version 5.3.1) with the CB6r3 (Carbon Bond 6 revision 3) AERO7 (version 7 of the aerosol module) chemical mechanism and is driven by the Finite-Volume Cubed-Sphere (FV3) Global Forecast System, version 16 (GFSv16). This update has been accomplished via the development of the meteorological preprocessor, NOAA-EPA Atmosphere–Chemistry Coupler (NACC), adapted from the existing Meteorology–Chemistry Interface Processor (MCIP). Differing from the typically used Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) CMAQ system in the air quality research community, the interpolation-based NACC can use various meteorological outputs to drive the CMAQ model (e.g., FV3-GFSv16), even though they are on different grids. In this study, we compare and evaluate GFSv16-CMAQ and WRFv4.0.3-CMAQ using observations over the contiguous United States (CONUS) in summer 2019 that have been verified with surface meteorological and AIRNow observations. During this period, the Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) field campaign was performed, and we compare the two models with airborne measurements from the NASA DC-8 aircraft. The GFS-CMAQ and WRF-CMAQ systems show similar performance overall with some differences for certain events, species and regions. The GFSv16 meteorology tends to have a stronger diurnal variability in the planetary boundary layer height (higher during daytime and lower at night) than WRF over the US Pacific coast, and it also predicted lower nighttime 10 m winds. In summer 2019, the GFS-CMAQ system showed better surface ozone (O3) than WRF-CMAQ at night over the CONUS domain; however, the models' fine particulate matter (PM2.5) predictions showed mixed verification results: GFS-CMAQ yielded better mean biases but poorer correlations over the Pacific coast. These results indicate that using global GFSv16 meteorology with NACC to directly drive CMAQ via interpolation is feasible and yields reasonable results compared to the commonly used WRF approach.
Department
Earth Systems Research Center
Publication Date
11-7-2022
Journal Title
Geoscientific Model Development
Publisher
EGU
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Document Type
Article
Recommended Citation
Tang, Y., P. C. Campbell, P. Lee, R. Saylor, F. Yang, B. Baker, D. Tong, A. Stein, J. Huang, H.-C. Huang, L. Pan, J. McQueen, I. Stajner, J. Tirado-Delgado, Y. Jung, M. Yang, I. Bourgeois, J. Peischl, T. Ryerson, D. Blake, J. Schwarz, J.-L. Jimenez, J. Crawford, G. Diskin, R. Moore, J. Hair, G. Huey, A. Rollins, J. Dibb, and X. Zhang (2022), Evaluation of the NAQFC driven by the NOAA Global Forecast System (version 16): comparison with the WRF-CMAQ downscaling method during the summer 2019 FIREX-AQ campaign, Geoscientific Model Development, 15, 7977-7999, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7977-2022.
Rights
© 2022 The Author(s)
Comments
This is an open access article published by EGU in Geoscientific Model Development in 2022, available online: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7977-2022