the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Updates and evaluation of NOAA’s online-coupled air quality model version 7 (AQMv7) within the Unified Forecast System
Abstract. Air quality forecasting system is an essential tool widely used by environmental managers to mitigate adverse health effects of air pollutants. This work presents the latest development of the next generation regional air quality model (AQM) forecast system within the Unified Forecast System (UFS) framework in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The UFS air quality model incorporates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model as its main chemistry component. In this system, CMAQ is integrated as a column model to solve gas and aerosol chemistry while the transport of chemical species is processed by UFS. The current AQM version 7 (AQMv7) is coupled with an earlier version of CMAQ (version 5.2.1). Here we describe the development of the updated AQMv7 by coupling to a ‘state-of-the-science’ CMAQ version 5.4. The updates include improvements in gas and aerosol chemistry, dry deposition processes, and structural changes to the Input/Output (IO) interface, enhancing both computational efficiency and the representation of air-surface exchange processes. A simulation was conducted for the period of August 2023 to assess the effects of these updates on the forecast performance of ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), two major air pollutants over the continental United States (CONUS). The results show that the updated model demonstrates a significantly enhanced capability in simulating O3 over the CONUS by reducing the positive bias during both day and night, leading to a reduction of the mean bias by 50 % and 72 % for hourly and the maximum daily 8-hour average O3, respectively. Spatially, the updated model lowers the positive bias of hourly O3 in all of the ten EPA regions, particularly within the Great Plains. Similarly, the updates induce uniformly lower fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations across the CONUS domain, reducing the positive bias in the northeast and central Great Plain and exacerbating the negative bias in the west and south. The updated model does not improve model performance for PM2.5 in the vicinity of fire emission sources as compared to AQMv7, thus indicating a focal point of model uncertainty and needed improvement. Despite these challenges, the study highlights the importance of the ongoing refinements for reliable air quality predictions from the UFS-AQM model, which is the future replacement of NOAA’s current operational air quality forecast system.
- Preprint
(2106 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1421 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-107', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2024
reply
The manuscript “Updates and evaluation of NOAA’s online-coupled air quality model version 7 (AQMv7) within the Unified Forecast System” provides a thorough evaluation of the updated NOAA’s air quality model version 7 (AQMv7) within the Unified Forecast System (UFS), incorporating the recent scientific improvements from the CMAQv5.4. The authors conducted two experiments in August 2023 to assess the performance of updates. The updated version (AQMv7_new) significantly improved the spatial and temporal persistent high positive biases of the ozone mixing ratios. The AQMv7_new demonstrated reduced PM2.5 in all regions of Contiguous United States (CONUS). This study indicates that the community air quality model of CMAQ could be well accommodated in the UFS-AQM framework. This manuscript is well written, and offers a valuable contribution into the evolution of NOAA’s air quality models. Therefore, it is recommended to accept this manuscript after addressing some minor revisions.
Minor Revisions:
- Is there aerosol/chemistry feedback to the host atmospheric model in AQMv7 and AQMv7_new?
- The wet deposition is also very important for the aerosol and chemical processes. However, the wet deposition is not mentioned in this manuscript. What kind of wet deposition is used in AQMv7_new?
- Lines 104-105: “while other transport terms, such as advection and diffusion, are more appropriately handed in the FV3 physics”. Please clarify whether the advection and diffusion are handled in the FV3 physics or dynamics?
- Line 409: replace "AQMv_new" with "AQMv7_new” for consistency.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-107-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
301 | 102 | 15 | 418 | 33 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 102
- XML: 15
- Total: 418
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1