HR: 11:50h
AN: A12C-07 [Abstracts]
TI: An Evaluation of Ozone and PM2.5 Air Quality Forecast Model Skill and Several Bias Correction Methods During the TEXAQS 2006 Field Program
AU: * DJALALOVA, I
EM: Irina.V.Djalalova@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/ESRL/Physical Sciences Division, 325 Broadway, R/PSD, Boulder, CO 80305,
United States
AU: Wilczak, J
EM: James.M.Wilczak@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/ESRL/Physical Sciences Division, 325 Broadway, R/PSD, Boulder, CO 80305,
United States
AU: McKeen, S
EM: Stuart.A.McKeen@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/ESRL/Chemical Sciences Division, 325 Broadway, R/CSD, Boulder, CO 80305,
United States
AU: Grell, G
EM: Georg.A.Grell@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/ESRL/Global Sciences Division, 325 Broadway, R/GSD, Boulder, CO 80305, United
States
AU: Peckham, S
EM: Steven.Peckham@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/ESRL/Global Sciences Division, 325 Broadway, R/GSD, Boulder, CO 80305, United
States
AU: McQueen, J
EM: Jeff.Mcqueen@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/NWS/Environmental Modeling Center, 5200 Auth Road, W/NP2, Camp Springs, MD
20746, United States
AU: Lee, P
EM: Pius.Lee@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/NWS/Environmental Modeling Center, 5200 Auth Road, W/NP2, Camp Springs, MD
20746, United States
AU: McHenry, J
EM: John.McHenry@baronams.com
AF: Baron AMS, North Carolina Supercomputing Center, 3021 Cornwallis Road, Research
Triangle Pa, NC 27709, United States
AU: Gong, W
EM: Wanmin.Gong@ec.gc.ca
AF: Environment Canada, AQRD/ASTD/STB, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, ON M3H 5T4,
Canada
AU: Bouchet, V
EM: Veronique.Bouchet@ec.gc.ca
AF: Centre Météorologique Canadien, 2121 Route Transcanadienne, Dorval, Qué H9P 1J3,
Canada
AU: Tang, Y
EM: Youhua.Tang@noaa.gov
AF: NOAA/NWS/Environmental Modeling Center, 5200 Auth Road, W/NP2, Camp Springs, MD
20746, United States
AB:
Surface ozone and PM 2.5 data from 119 AIRNOW sites collected during the TEXAQS August 01-October 15, 2006
field program are used to evaluate 7 different air quality models: AURAMS, BAMS-15km, CHRONOS, CMAQ,
WRF-12km, WRF-36km and STEM. Skill from the individual models is compared to that of the ensemble mean of
the models, using both simple bulk statistics as well as categorical forecast statistics. In addition, three different
bias correction techniques are compared: a simple 7-day mean bias correction, a Kalman Filter approach, and a
dynamical weighting method. The advantages of each technique are contrasted for ozone and PM2.5.
DE: 3337 Global climate models (1626, 4928)
DE: 3355 Regional modeling
DE: 3360 Remote sensing
SC: Atmospheric Sciences [A]
MN: 2007 Fall Meeting