09 Jun 2022
09 Jun 2022
Status: this preprint is open for discussion.

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

Youhua Tang1,2, Patrick Campbell1,2, Pius Lee1, Rick Saylor1, Fanglin Yang3, Barry Baker1, Daniel Tong1,2, Ariel Stein1, Jianping Huang3,4, Ho-Chun Huang3,4, Li Pan3,4, Jeff McQueen3, Ivanka Stajner3, Jose Tirado-Delgado5,6, Youngsun Jung5, Melissa Yang7, Ilann Bourgeois8,9, Jeff Peischl8,9, Tom Ryerson9, Donald Blake10, Joshua Schwarz9, Jose-Luis Jimenez8, James Crawford11, Glenn Diskin7, Richard Moore7, Johnathan Hair7, Greg Huey11, Andrew Rollins9, Jack Dibb12, and Xiaoyang Zhang13 Youhua Tang et al.
  • 1NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, College Park, MD, USA
  • 2Center for Spatial Information Science and Systems, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
  • 3NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction, College Park, MD, USA
  • 4I.M. Systems Group Inc., Rockville, MD, USA
  • 5Office of Science and Technology Integration, NOAA National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA
  • 6Eastern Research Group Inc, USA
  • 7NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
  • 8Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
  • 9NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
  • 10Department of Chemistry, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
  • 11School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
  • 12Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
  • 13Department of Geography & Geospatial Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA

Abstract. The latest operational National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) has been advanced to use the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.3.1 with CB6 (carbon bond version 6)-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 has been accomplished by development of the meteorological preprocessor, NOAA-EPA Atmosphere-Chemistry Coupler (NACC), which is 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 output to drive CMAQ (e.g., FV3-GFSv16) even though they are in different grids. Here we compare and evaluate GFSv16-CMAQ vs. WRFv4.0.3-CMAQ using observations over the contiguous United States (CONUS) in summer 2019. 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 mainly from the NASA DC-8 aircraft. The GFS-CMAQ and WRF-CMAQ systems have overall similar performance with some differences for certain events, species and regions. The GFSv16 meteorology tends to have stronger planetary boundary layer height diurnal variability (higher during daytime, and lower at night) than WRF over the U.S. Pacific coast, and it also predicted lower nighttime 10-m winds. In summer 2019, GFS-CMAQ system showed better surface O3 than WRF-CMAQ at night over the CONUS domain; however, their PM2.5 predictions showed mixed verification results: GFS-CMAQ yielded better mean bias but poorer correlations over the Pacific coast. These results indicate that using global GFSv16 meteorology with NACC to directly drive CMAQ via the interpolation is feasible and yields reasonable results compared to the commonly-used WRF downscaling approach.

Youhua Tang et al.

Status: open (until 04 Aug 2022)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse

Youhua Tang et al.


Total article views: 176 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
140 31 5 176 17 2 2
  • HTML: 140
  • PDF: 31
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 176
  • Supplement: 17
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 2
Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jun 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jun 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 146 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 146 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
Latest update: 02 Jul 2022
Short summary
This paper compared two meteorological data for driving the regional air quality model: a regional meteorological modelling using WRF (WRF-CMAQ), and the direct interpolation from an operational global model (GFS-CMAQ). In the comparison with surface measurements and aircraft data in summer 2019, these two methods have mixed performance depending on the corresponding meteorological settings and performances. The direct interpolation is a viable method to drive air quality models.