Xueying Liu, Yuxuan Wang, Shailaja Wasti, Wei Li, Ehsan Soleimanian, James Flynn, Travis Griggs, Sergio Alvarez, John T. Sullivan, Maurice Roots, Laurence Twigg, Guillaume Gronoff, Timothy Berkoff, Paul Walter, Mark Estes, Johnathan W. Hair, Taylor Shingler, Amy Jo Scarino, Marta Fenn, Laura Judd
{"title":"评估WRF-GC v2.0在2021年德克萨斯州休斯顿TRACER-AQ运动期间对边界层高度和垂直臭氧剖面的预测","authors":"Xueying Liu, Yuxuan Wang, Shailaja Wasti, Wei Li, Ehsan Soleimanian, James Flynn, Travis Griggs, Sergio Alvarez, John T. Sullivan, Maurice Roots, Laurence Twigg, Guillaume Gronoff, Timothy Berkoff, Paul Walter, Mark Estes, Johnathan W. Hair, Taylor Shingler, Amy Jo Scarino, Marta Fenn, Laura Judd","doi":"10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The TRacking Aerosol Convection ExpeRiment – Air Quality (TRACER-AQ) campaign probed Houston air quality with a comprehensive suite of ground-based and airborne remote sensing measurements during the intensive operating period in September 2021. Two post-frontal high-ozone episodes (6–11 and 23–26 September) were recorded during the aforementioned period. In this study, we evaluated the simulation of the planetary boundary layer (PBL) height and the vertical ozone profile by a high-resolution (1.33 km) 3-D photochemical model, the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)-driven GEOS-Chem (WRF-GC). We evaluated the PBL heights with a ceilometer at the coastal site La Porte and the airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar 2 (HSRL-2) flying over urban Houston and adjacent waters. Compared with the ceilometer at La Porte, the model captures the diurnal variations in the PBL heights with a very strong temporal correlation (R>0.7) and ±20 % biases. Compared with the airborne HSRL-2, the model exhibits a moderate to strong spatial correlation (R=0.26–0.68), with ±20 % biases during the noon and afternoon hours during ozone episodes. For land–water differences in PBL heights, the water has shallower PBL heights compared to land. The model predicts larger land–water differences than the observations because the model consistently underestimates the PBL heights over land compared to water. We evaluated vertical ozone distributions by comparing the model against vertical measurements from the TROPospheric OZone lidar (TROPOZ), the HSRL-2, and ozonesondes, as well as surface measurements at La Porte from a model 49i ozone analyzer and one Continuous Ambient Monitoring Station (CAMS). The model underestimates free-tropospheric ozone (2–3 km aloft) by 9 %–22 % but overestimates near-ground ozone (<50 m aloft) by 6 %-39 % during the two ozone episodes. Boundary layer ozone (0.5–1 km aloft) is underestimated by 1 %–11 % during 8–11 September but overestimated by 0 %–7 % during 23–26 September. Based on these evaluations, we identified two model limitations, namely the single-layer PBL representation and the free-tropospheric ozone underestimation. These limitations have implications for the predictivity of ozone's vertical mixing and distribution in other models.","PeriodicalId":12799,"journal":{"name":"Geoscientific Model Development","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating WRF-GC v2.0 predictions of boundary layer height and vertical ozone profile during the 2021 TRACER-AQ campaign in Houston, Texas\",\"authors\":\"Xueying Liu, Yuxuan Wang, Shailaja Wasti, Wei Li, Ehsan Soleimanian, James Flynn, Travis Griggs, Sergio Alvarez, John T. Sullivan, Maurice Roots, Laurence Twigg, Guillaume Gronoff, Timothy Berkoff, Paul Walter, Mark Estes, Johnathan W. Hair, Taylor Shingler, Amy Jo Scarino, Marta Fenn, Laura Judd\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. The TRacking Aerosol Convection ExpeRiment – Air Quality (TRACER-AQ) campaign probed Houston air quality with a comprehensive suite of ground-based and airborne remote sensing measurements during the intensive operating period in September 2021. Two post-frontal high-ozone episodes (6–11 and 23–26 September) were recorded during the aforementioned period. In this study, we evaluated the simulation of the planetary boundary layer (PBL) height and the vertical ozone profile by a high-resolution (1.33 km) 3-D photochemical model, the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)-driven GEOS-Chem (WRF-GC). We evaluated the PBL heights with a ceilometer at the coastal site La Porte and the airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar 2 (HSRL-2) flying over urban Houston and adjacent waters. Compared with the ceilometer at La Porte, the model captures the diurnal variations in the PBL heights with a very strong temporal correlation (R>0.7) and ±20 % biases. Compared with the airborne HSRL-2, the model exhibits a moderate to strong spatial correlation (R=0.26–0.68), with ±20 % biases during the noon and afternoon hours during ozone episodes. For land–water differences in PBL heights, the water has shallower PBL heights compared to land. The model predicts larger land–water differences than the observations because the model consistently underestimates the PBL heights over land compared to water. We evaluated vertical ozone distributions by comparing the model against vertical measurements from the TROPospheric OZone lidar (TROPOZ), the HSRL-2, and ozonesondes, as well as surface measurements at La Porte from a model 49i ozone analyzer and one Continuous Ambient Monitoring Station (CAMS). The model underestimates free-tropospheric ozone (2–3 km aloft) by 9 %–22 % but overestimates near-ground ozone (<50 m aloft) by 6 %-39 % during the two ozone episodes. Boundary layer ozone (0.5–1 km aloft) is underestimated by 1 %–11 % during 8–11 September but overestimated by 0 %–7 % during 23–26 September. Based on these evaluations, we identified two model limitations, namely the single-layer PBL representation and the free-tropospheric ozone underestimation. These limitations have implications for the predictivity of ozone's vertical mixing and distribution in other models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geoscientific Model Development\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geoscientific Model Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscientific Model Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating WRF-GC v2.0 predictions of boundary layer height and vertical ozone profile during the 2021 TRACER-AQ campaign in Houston, Texas
Abstract. The TRacking Aerosol Convection ExpeRiment – Air Quality (TRACER-AQ) campaign probed Houston air quality with a comprehensive suite of ground-based and airborne remote sensing measurements during the intensive operating period in September 2021. Two post-frontal high-ozone episodes (6–11 and 23–26 September) were recorded during the aforementioned period. In this study, we evaluated the simulation of the planetary boundary layer (PBL) height and the vertical ozone profile by a high-resolution (1.33 km) 3-D photochemical model, the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)-driven GEOS-Chem (WRF-GC). We evaluated the PBL heights with a ceilometer at the coastal site La Porte and the airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar 2 (HSRL-2) flying over urban Houston and adjacent waters. Compared with the ceilometer at La Porte, the model captures the diurnal variations in the PBL heights with a very strong temporal correlation (R>0.7) and ±20 % biases. Compared with the airborne HSRL-2, the model exhibits a moderate to strong spatial correlation (R=0.26–0.68), with ±20 % biases during the noon and afternoon hours during ozone episodes. For land–water differences in PBL heights, the water has shallower PBL heights compared to land. The model predicts larger land–water differences than the observations because the model consistently underestimates the PBL heights over land compared to water. We evaluated vertical ozone distributions by comparing the model against vertical measurements from the TROPospheric OZone lidar (TROPOZ), the HSRL-2, and ozonesondes, as well as surface measurements at La Porte from a model 49i ozone analyzer and one Continuous Ambient Monitoring Station (CAMS). The model underestimates free-tropospheric ozone (2–3 km aloft) by 9 %–22 % but overestimates near-ground ozone (<50 m aloft) by 6 %-39 % during the two ozone episodes. Boundary layer ozone (0.5–1 km aloft) is underestimated by 1 %–11 % during 8–11 September but overestimated by 0 %–7 % during 23–26 September. Based on these evaluations, we identified two model limitations, namely the single-layer PBL representation and the free-tropospheric ozone underestimation. These limitations have implications for the predictivity of ozone's vertical mixing and distribution in other models.
期刊介绍:
Geoscientific Model Development (GMD) is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and public discussion of the description, development, and evaluation of numerical models of the Earth system and its components. The following manuscript types can be considered for peer-reviewed publication:
* geoscientific model descriptions, from statistical models to box models to GCMs;
* development and technical papers, describing developments such as new parameterizations or technical aspects of running models such as the reproducibility of results;
* new methods for assessment of models, including work on developing new metrics for assessing model performance and novel ways of comparing model results with observational data;
* papers describing new standard experiments for assessing model performance or novel ways of comparing model results with observational data;
* model experiment descriptions, including experimental details and project protocols;
* full evaluations of previously published models.