Articles | Volume 15, issue 24
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9015-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9015-2022
Model description paper
 | 
16 Dec 2022
Model description paper |  | 16 Dec 2022

Predicting peak daily maximum 8 h ozone and linkages to emissions and meteorology in Southern California using machine learning methods (SoCAB-8HR V1.0)

Ziqi Gao, Yifeng Wang, Petros Vasilakos, Cesunica E. Ivey, Khanh Do, and Armistead G. Russell

Related authors

Source-specific bias correction of US background and anthropogenic ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8373–8397, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024, 2024
Short summary
Significant contrasts in aerosol acidity between China and the United States
Bingqing Zhang, Huizhong Shen, Pengfei Liu, Hongyu Guo, Yongtao Hu, Yilin Chen, Shaodong Xie, Ziyan Xi, T. Nash Skipper, and Armistead G. Russell
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8341–8356, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8341-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8341-2021, 2021
Short summary
Aerosol acidity and liquid water content regulate the dry deposition of inorganic reactive nitrogen
Athanasios Nenes, Spyros N. Pandis, Maria Kanakidou, Armistead G. Russell, Shaojie Song, Petros Vasilakos, and Rodney J. Weber
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6023–6033, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6023-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6023-2021, 2021
Short summary
High-resolution hybrid inversion of IASI ammonia columns to constrain US ammonia emissions using the CMAQ adjoint model
Yilin Chen, Huizhong Shen, Jennifer Kaiser, Yongtao Hu, Shannon L. Capps, Shunliu Zhao, Amir Hakami, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Gertrude K. Pavur, Matthew D. Turner, Daven K. Henze, Jaroslav Resler, Athanasios Nenes, Sergey L. Napelenok, Jesse O. Bash, Kathleen M. Fahey, Gregory R. Carmichael, Tianfeng Chai, Lieven Clarisse, Pierre-François Coheur, Martin Van Damme, and Armistead G. Russell
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2067–2082, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2067-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2067-2021, 2021
Short summary
A multiphase CMAQ version 5.0 adjoint
Shunliu Zhao, Matthew G. Russell, Amir Hakami, Shannon L. Capps, Matthew D. Turner, Daven K. Henze, Peter B. Percell, Jaroslav Resler, Huizhong Shen, Armistead G. Russell, Athanasios Nenes, Amanda J. Pappin, Sergey L. Napelenok, Jesse O. Bash, Kathleen M. Fahey, Gregory R. Carmichael, Charles O. Stanier, and Tianfeng Chai
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2925–2944, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2925-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2925-2020, 2020

Related subject area

Numerical methods
The Measurement Error Proxy System Model: MEPSM v0.2
Matt J. Fischer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6745–6760, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6745-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6745-2024, 2024
Short summary
Numerical stabilization methods for level-set-based ice front migration
Gong Cheng, Mathieu Morlighem, and G. Hilmar Gudmundsson
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6227–6247, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6227-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6227-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modelling chemical advection during magma ascent
Hugo Dominguez, Nicolas Riel, and Pierre Lanari
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6105–6122, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6105-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6105-2024, 2024
Short summary
Consistent point data assimilation in Firedrake and Icepack
Reuben W. Nixon-Hill, Daniel Shapero, Colin J. Cotter, and David A. Ham
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5369–5386, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024, 2024
Short summary
A Joint Reconstruction and Model Selection Approach for Large Scale Inverse Modeling
Malena Sabaté Landman, Julianne Chung, Jiahua Jiang, Scot Miller, and Arvind Saibaba
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-90,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-90, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary

Cited articles

Agarwal, R. and Sen, S.: Creators of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10870-4, 2014. 
Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J., and Emberson, L. D.: The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and Implications for Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 63, 637–661, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829, 2012. 
Aldrin, M. and Haff, I.: Generalised additive modelling of air pollution, traffic volume and meteorology, Atmos. Environ., 39, 2145–2155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.12.020, 2005. 
Alduchov, O. A. and Eskridge, R. E.: Improved Magnus Form Approximation of Saturation Vapor Pressure, J. Appl. Meteorol., 35, 601–609, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1996)035<0601:imfaos>2.0.co;2, 1996. 
Aw, J. and Kleeman, M. J.: Evaluating the first-order effect of intraannual temperature variability on urban air pollution, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4365, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002688, 2003. 
Download
Short summary
While the national ambient air quality standard of ozone is based on the 3-year average of the fourth highest 8 h maximum (MDA8) ozone concentrations, these predicted extreme values using numerical methods are always biased low. We built four computational models (GAM, MARS, random forest and SVR) to predict the fourth highest MDA8 ozone in Southern California using precursor emissions, meteorology and climatological patterns. All models presented acceptable performance, with GAM being the best.