Articles | Volume 15, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7977-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7977-2022
Model evaluation paper
 | 
07 Nov 2022
Model evaluation paper |  | 07 Nov 2022

Evaluation of the NAQFC driven by the NOAA Global Forecast System (version 16): comparison with the WRF-CMAQ during the summer 2019 FIREX-AQ campaign

Youhua Tang, Patrick C. Campbell, Pius Lee, Rick Saylor, Fanglin Yang, Barry Baker, Daniel Tong, Ariel Stein, Jianping Huang, Ho-Chun Huang, Li Pan, Jeff McQueen, Ivanka Stajner, Jose Tirado-Delgado, Youngsun Jung, Melissa Yang, Ilann Bourgeois, Jeff Peischl, Tom Ryerson, Donald Blake, Joshua Schwarz, Jose-Luis Jimenez, James Crawford, Glenn Diskin, Richard Moore, Johnathan Hair, Greg Huey, Andrew Rollins, Jack Dibb, and Xiaoyang Zhang

Related authors

Updates and evaluation of NOAA’s online-coupled air quality model version 7 (AQMv7) within the Unified Forecast System
Wei Li, Beiming Tang, Patrick C. Campbell, Youhua Tang, Barry Baker, Zachary Moon, Daniel Tong, Jianping Huang, Kai Wang, Ivanka Stajner, Raffaele Montuoro, and Robert C. Gilliam
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-107,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-107, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Impacts of estimated plume rise on PM2.5 exceedance prediction during extreme wildfire events: a comparison of three schemes (Briggs, Freitas, and Sofiev)
Yunyao Li, Daniel Tong, Siqi Ma, Saulo R. Freitas, Ravan Ahmadov, Mikhail Sofiev, Xiaoyang Zhang, Shobha Kondragunta, Ralph Kahn, Youhua Tang, Barry Baker, Patrick Campbell, Rick Saylor, Georg Grell, and Fangjun Li
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3083–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3083-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3083-2023, 2023
Short summary
Development and evaluation of an advanced National Air Quality Forecasting Capability using the NOAA Global Forecast System version 16
Patrick C. Campbell, Youhua Tang, Pius Lee, Barry Baker, Daniel Tong, Rick Saylor, Ariel Stein, Jianping Huang, Ho-Chun Huang, Edward Strobach, Jeff McQueen, Li Pan, Ivanka Stajner, Jamese Sims, Jose Tirado-Delgado, Youngsun Jung, Fanglin Yang, Tanya L. Spero, and Robert C. Gilliam
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3281–3313, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3281-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3281-2022, 2022
Short summary
Improving predictability of high-ozone episodes through dynamic boundary conditions, emission refresh and chemical data assimilation during the Long Island Sound Tropospheric Ozone Study (LISTOS) field campaign
Siqi Ma, Daniel Tong, Lok Lamsal, Julian Wang, Xuelei Zhang, Youhua Tang, Rick Saylor, Tianfeng Chai, Pius Lee, Patrick Campbell, Barry Baker, Shobha Kondragunta, Laura Judd, Timothy A. Berkoff, Scott J. Janz, and Ivanka Stajner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16531–16553, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16531-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16531-2021, 2021
Short summary
Evaluation of the offline-coupled GFSv15–FV3–CMAQv5.0.2 in support of the next-generation National Air Quality Forecast Capability over the contiguous United States
Xiaoyang Chen, Yang Zhang, Kai Wang, Daniel Tong, Pius Lee, Youhua Tang, Jianping Huang, Patrick C. Campbell, Jeff Mcqueen, Havala O. T. Pye, Benjamin N. Murphy, and Daiwen Kang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3969–3993, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3969-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3969-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Forecasting contrail climate forcing for flight planning and air traffic management applications: the CocipGrid model in pycontrails 0.51.0
Zebediah Engberg, Roger Teoh, Tristan Abbott, Thomas Dean, Marc E. J. Stettler, and Marc L. Shapiro
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 253–286, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-253-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-253-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulation of the heat mitigation potential of unsealing measures in cities by parameterizing grass grid pavers for urban microclimate modelling with ENVI-met (V5)
Nils Eingrüber, Alina Domm, Wolfgang Korres, and Karl Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 141–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025, 2025
Short summary
AI-NAOS: an AI-based nonspherical aerosol optical scheme for the chemical weather model GRAPES_Meso5.1/CUACE
Xuan Wang, Lei Bi, Hong Wang, Yaqiang Wang, Wei Han, Xueshun Shen, and Xiaoye Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 117–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Orbital-Radar v1.0.0: a tool to transform suborbital radar observations to synthetic EarthCARE cloud radar data
Lukas Pfitzenmaier, Pavlos Kollias, Nils Risse, Imke Schirmacher, Bernat Puigdomenech Treserras, and Katia Lamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 101–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Modular and Integrated Data Assimilation System at Environment and Climate Change Canada (MIDAS v3.9.1)
Mark Buehner, Jean-Francois Caron, Ervig Lapalme, Alain Caya, Ping Du, Yves Rochon, Sergey Skachko, Maziar Bani Shahabadi, Sylvain Heilliette, Martin Deshaies-Jacques, Weiguang Chang, and Michael Sitwell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Arakawa, A. and Lamb, V.: Computational design of the basic dynamical processes of the UCLA general circulation model, Meth. Comput. Phys., 17, 173–265, 1977. 
Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Tonnesen, G. S., Hutzell, W., Pye, H. O. T., Beaver, M. R., Pouliot, G., and Pierce, T.: Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and PM2.5 air quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches, Atmos. Environ., 140, 539–554, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032, 2016. 
Briggs, G. A.: A Plume Rise Model Compared with Observations, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 15, 433–438, https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1965.10468404, 1965. 
Byun, D. and Schere, K. L.: 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, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2128636, 2006. 
Download
Short summary
This paper compares two meteorological datasets for driving a regional air quality model: a regional meteorological model using WRF (WRF-CMAQ) and direct interpolation from an operational global model (GFS-CMAQ). In the comparison with surface measurements and aircraft data in summer 2019, these two methods show mixed performance depending on the corresponding meteorological settings. Direct interpolation is found to be a viable method to drive air quality models.