HTAP Work Package 2.6: Comparison of Source Receptor (SR) and Source Attainment (SA) Methods

Transcription

1 HTAP Work Package 2.6: Comparison of Source Receptor (SR) and Source Attainment (SA) Methods HTAP Meeting 10/30/2031 Kateryna Lapina, Yanko Davila, Daven K. Henze

2 Concerns for nonlinear systems Receptor metric Implied SR Source attribution (SA) e.g., zero-out, tagged Source strength

3 Concerns for nonlinear systems Receptor metric Gradient based (adjoint or DDM) Implied SA Implied SR Source attribution (SA) e.g., zero-out, tagged Source strength

4 Concerns for nonlinear systems Receptor metric Gradient based (adjoint or DDM) Implied SA Perturbation (HTAP) Implied SA Implied SR Source attribution (SA) e.g., zero-out, tagged Source strength HTAP: we have multiple models capable of each

5 HTAP 2.6: Comparison of SR and SA methods 1. Explore differences across models for a single SR approach - need (new?) unifying, normalized metrics - use observations to correct for model bias (e.g., Lapina et al., 2014)? 2. Explore differences across SR approaches - implementation (e.g., global <-> regional) - interpretation and utility (analysis vs projection) 3. Evaluation and uncertainty - cross-sensitivities (space, species) - validation simulations - comparison to observations of SR relationships (e.g., Parrish et al., 2014: global models underestimate response of O 3 to NOx trends?) Strategy - target a few response metrics, regions, & future scenarios - work from overlap with CCAC / NASA AQAST activities - address issues listed above in detail for limited/targeted cases

6 Ongoing SR and SA activities / capabilities 1. Standard suite of HTAP model simulations ( 20% emission) - all 2. Adjoint (detailed source treatment, linear) - GEOS-Chem (global, regional) - CMAQ - STEM 3. DDM (detailed receptor treatment, linear) - CMAQ (anyone?) 4. Tagged (complete SA, nonlinear) - AM3 - MOZART 5. Response Surface Model (future projections, nonlinear) - CMAQ (Fu)

7 RSM (Joshua Fu, UT)

8 Case Study: SA of O3 in Western US (Lapina et al., 2014) W126 biologically-based 3-month sum of weighted hourly [O 3 ] alternative levels considered: ppm hrs M12 W126, M12 only daytime concentrations 8AM-8PM LT

9 Adjoint vs perturbation: Impact of Chinese emissions on W US ozone NOx, CO, NMVOCs NOx M12 in Western US (mean MJJ 2010) Full run Adjoint W126 in Western US (mean MJJ 2010) Fortuitous cancelation of nonlinearities?

10 Adjoint vs perturbation: Impact of US emissions on W US ozone NOx, CO, NMVOCs NOx M12 in Western US (mean MJJ 2010) Full run Adjoint W126 in Western US (mean MJJ 2010) Should we have a round of large (zero-out) simulations in each receptor region?

11 M12 in Western US (mean MJJ 2010) Adjoint vs perturbation: Impact of US emissions on W US ozone NOx, CO, NMVOCs (zoom) Full run Adjoint Species sum of individual species > simultaneous (Consistent with HTAP1, e.g., Wild et al., 2012) sum of individual locations < simultaneous (trigger less nonlinearity by perturbing only one grid at a time)

12 Adjoint vs perturbation: Impacts of spatial aggregation Projecting changes in US W126 (% relative to 2000) due to the change in Energy NO x in China S i,j = sensitivity in grid i,j (from adjoint) 1: 1 RCP 8.5 RCP 6.0 RCP 4.5 RCP 2.6 One data point per time step (i.e., 2010, ) Knowing the sensitivities at sub-source region scales is important for projecting O3 response in some scenarios, but not others

13 Adjoint vs perturbation: Impacts of spatial aggregation

14 Estimated change in W126 for by RCP (Lapina et al., in prep) RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 Foreign US Total RCP 6.0 RCP 8.5 Foreign contributions could contribute significantly by the time we cross lowest levels being consider for a secondary standard Not yet including CH4 impacts W126 in individual locations within the West may differ

15 HTAP 2.6: schedule of activities 1. Fall finish standard HTAP runs - survey members regarding plans for additional SR/SA runs 2. Winter additional SR/SA runs 3. Spring intercomparison and analysis 4.??? 5. Glory, cover articles, etc.