Train 12 Aq Forecasting Tools

AREP
GAW
Section 12
Air Quality Forecasting Tools
AREP
GAW
Background
• Forecasting tools provide
information to help guide the
forecasting process.
• Forecasters use a variety of
data products, information,
tools, and experience to predict
air quality.
• Forecasting tools are built
upon an understanding of the
processes that control air
quality.
• Forecasting tools:
– Subjective
– Objective
• More forecasting tools = better
results. www.epa.vic.gov.au/air/AAQFS
Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

2
AREP
GAW
Background
• Persistence
Fewer resources, lower
• Climatology accuracy
• Criteria
• Statistical
– Classification and
Regression Tree (CART)
– Regression
• Neural networks
• Numerical modeling
More resources, potential
• Phenomenological and for higher accuracy
experience
• Predictor variables
3
AREP
GAW
Selecting Predictor Variables (1 of 3)

• Many methods require predictor variables.
– Meteorological
– Air Quality
• Before selecting particular variables it is important to
understand the phenomena that affect pollutant
concentrations in your region.
• The variables selected should capture the important
phenomena that affect pollutant concentrations in the
region.

4
AREP
GAW

• Select observed and forecasted variables. Predictor
variables can consist of observed variables (e.g.,
yesterday’s ozone or PM2.5 concentration) and
forecasted variables (e.g., tomorrow’s maximum
temperature).
• Make sure that predictor variables are easily
obtainable from reliable source(s) and can be forecast.
• Consider uncertainty in measurements, particularly
measurements of PM.

5
AREP
GAW

• Begin with as many as 50 to 100 predictor variables.
• Use statistical analysis techniques to identify the most
important variables.
– Cluster analysis is used to partition data into similar and
dissimilar subsets. Unique (i.e., dissimilar) variables
should be used to avoid redundancy.
– Correlation analysis is used to evaluate the relationship
between the predictand (i.e., pollutant levels) and
various predictor variables.
– Step-wise regression is an automatic procedure that
allows the statistical software (SAS, Statgraphics,
Systat, etc.) to select the most important variables and
generate the best regression equation.
– Human selection is another means of selecting the most
important predictor variables.
6
AREP
GAW
Common Ozone Predictor Variables
Condition for
Variable Usefulness
High Ozone
Maximum temperature Highly correlated with ozone and ozone formation High
Morning wind speed Associated with dispersion and dilution of ozone Low
precursor pollutants
Afternoon wind speed Associated with transport of ozone -
Cloud cover Controls solar radiation, which influences Few
photochemistry
Relative humidity Surrogate for cloud cover Low
500-mb height Indicator of the synoptic-scale weather pattern High
850-mb temperature Surrogate for vertical mixing High
Pressure gradients Causes winds/ventilation Low
Length of day Amount of solar radiation Longer
Day of week Emissions differences -
Morning NOx concentration Ozone precursor levels High
Previous day’s peak ozone Persistence, carry-over High
concentration
Aloft wind speed and Transport from upwind region -
direction

7
AREP
GAW
Common PM2.5 Predictor Variables
Condition for
Variable Usefulness
High PM2.5
500-mb height Indicator of the synoptic-scale High
weather pattern
Surface wind speed Associated with dispersion and Low
dilution of pollutants
Surface wind direction Associated with transport of pollutants -
Pressure gradient Causes wind/ventilation Low
Previous day’s peak Persistence, carry-over High
PM2.5 concentration
850-mb temperature Surrogate for vertical mixing High
Precipitation Associated with clean-out None or light
Relative Humidity Affects secondary reactions High
Holiday Additional emissions -
Day of week Emissions differences -

8
AREP
GAW
Assembling a dataset
• Determine what data to use
– What data types are needed and available
– What sites are representative
– What air quality monitoring network(s) to use (for
example, continuous versus passive or filter)
– What type of meteorological data are available
(surface, upper-air, satellite, etc.)
– How much data is available (years)

9
AREP
GAW
• Acquire historical data including
• Hourly pollutant data
• Daily maximum pollutant metrics, such as
• Peak 1-hr ozone
• Peak 8-hr average ozone
• 24-hr average PM2.5 or PM10
• Hourly meteorological data
• Radiosonde data
• Model data
• Meteorological outputs
• MM5/TAPM
• Other
• Surface and upper-air weather charts
• HYSPLIT trajectories
10
AREP
GAW
• Quality control data
– Check for outliers
• Look at the minimum and maximum values for each field; are they
reasonable?
• Check rate of change between records at each extreme.
– Time stamps
• Has all data been properly matched by time?
• Time series plots can help identify problems shifting from UTC to LST.
– Missing data
• Is the same identifier used for each field? I.e., –999.
– Units
• Are units consistent among different data sets? I.e., m/s or knots for
wind speeds.
– Validation codes
• Are validation codes consistent among different data sets?
• Do the validation codes match the data values? I.e., are data values
of –999 flagged as missing?

11
AREP
GAW
Forecasting Tools and Methods (1 of 2)
Tool development is a function of

– Amount and quality of data (air quality and
meteorological)
– Resources for development
• Human
• Software
• Computing
– Resources for operations
• Human
• Software
• Computing

12
AREP
GAW
Forecasting Tools and Methods (2 of 2)
For each tool

• What is it?
• How does it work?
• Example
• How to develop it?
• Strengths
• Limitations

13
AREP
GAW
Persistence (1 of 2)
• Persistence means to continue steadily in some state.
– Tomorrow’s pollutant concentration will be the same as
Today’s.
• Best used as a starting point and to help guide other
forecasting methods.
• It should not be used as the only forecasting method.
• Modifying a persistence forecast with forecasting
experience can help improve forecast accuracy.
Persistence forecast
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Unhealthy Unhealthy Unhealthy

14
AREP
GAW
Persistence (2 of 2)
• Seven high ozone days (red)
Peak 8-hr ozone concentrations for a sample city
• Five of these days occurred after a Day Ozone (ppb) Day Ozone (ppb)
high day (*)
1 80 16 120*
• Probability of high ozone occurring 2 50 17 110*
on the day after a high ozone day is 3 50 18 80
4 70 19 80
5 out of 7 days 5 80 20 70
• Probability of a low ozone day 6 100 21 60
occurring after a low ozone day are 7 110* 22 50
8 90* 23 50
20 out of 22 days 9 80 24 70
• Persistence method would be 10 80 25 80
11 80 26 80
accurate 25 out of 29 days, or 86% 12 70 27 70
of the time 13 80 28 80
14 90 29 60
15 110* 30 70

15
AREP
GAW
Persistence – Strengths
• Persistence forecasting
– Useful for several continuous days with similar
weather conditions
– Provides a starting point for an air quality forecast
that can be refined by using other forecasting
methods
– Easy to use and requires little expertise

16
AREP
GAW
Persistence – Limitations
• Persistence forecasting cannot
– Predict the start and end of a pollution episode
– Work well under changing weather conditions when
accurate air quality predictions can be most critical

17
AREP
GAW
Climatology
• Climatology is the study of average and extreme
weather or air quality conditions at a given location.
• Climatology can help forecasters bound and guide
their air quality predictions.

18
AREP
GAW
Climatology – Example
Average number of days per month with ozone in each
AQI category for Sacramento, California
30
25
20
15
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

19
AREP
GAW
Developing Climatology
• Create a data set containing at least five years of
recent pollutant data.
• Create tables or charts for forecast areas containing
– All-time maximum pollutant concentrations (by month, by site)
– Duration of high pollutant episodes (number of consecutive
days, hours of high pollutant each day)
– Average number of days with high pollutant levels by month
and by week
– Day-of-week distribution of high pollutant concentrations
– Average and peak pollutant concentrations by holidays and
non-holidays, weekends and weekdays

20
AREP
GAW
Developing Climatology
• Consider emissions changes
– For example, fuel reformulation
– It may be useful to divide the climate tables or charts
into “before” and “after” periods for major emissions
changes.
FRANKLIN SMELTING & REFINING CORP - Annual Average Lead Concentrations
20 8000
MACT Rule
MACT Comp
7000
Site 421010449
16
Site 421010149
Monitoring Sites: Lead (ug/m3)*
6000
Franklin Smelting: Lead (lbs)

Franklin Smelting (TRI)
5000
12
4000
8
3000
2000
4
1000
0 0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
*A verage Satisfies Co mpleteness Rule
McCarthy et al., 2005
21
AREP
GAW
Climatology
Day of week distribution of AQI days above 100 for Birmingham
Day of week distribution of high PM2.5 days
(2001-2004)
14
12
10
Number of Days
0
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
– High pollution days occur most often on Wednesday

– High pollution days occur least often at the beginning of the week
22
AREP
GAW
Climatology
7
Distribution of high ozone days by upper-air weather pattern

6
5
Number of days with 8-hr exceedance
0
Strong upstream Broad High Ridge well Weak upstream Ridge NE Zonal Trough
ridge upstream ridge
Synoptic Pattern

23
AREP
GAW
Climatology – Strengths
• Climatology
– Bounds and guides an air quality forecast produced
by other methods
– Easy to develop

24
AREP
GAW
Climatology – Limitations
• Climatology
– Is not a stand-alone forecasting method but a tool
to complement other forecast methods
– Does not account for abrupt changes in emissions
patterns such as those associated with the use of
reformulated fuel, a large change in population,
forest fires, etc.
– Requires enough data (years) to establish realistic
trends

25
AREP
GAW
Criteria
• Uses threshold values (criteria) of meteorological or air
quality variables to forecast pollutant concentrations
– For example, if temperature > 27°C and
wind < 2 m/s then ozone will be in the Unhealthy
AQI category
• Sometimes called “rules of thumb”
• Commonly used in many forecasting programs as a
primary forecasting method or combined with other
methods
• Best suited to help forecast high pollution or low
pollution events, or pollution in a particular air quality
index category range rather than an exact
concentration

26
AREP
GAW Criteria – Example
Conditions needed for high pollution by month
Daily Temp Daily Temp Daily Wind Wind Speed Day Before Ozone
Month Max Range Speed 15-21 UTC 1-hr Max
(above oC) (above oC) (below m/s) (below m/s) (above ppb)
Apr 26 11 4 3 70
May 29 11 4 5 70
Jun 29 11 3 5 70
Jul 33 11 3 4 70
Aug 33 11 3 4 70
Sep 31 10 3 4 75
Oct 31 10 3 3 75
Lambeth, 1998
To have a high pollution day in July
– maximum temperature must be at least 33C,
– temperature difference between the morning low and afternoon
high must be at least 11C
– average daytime wind speed must be less than 3 m/s,
– afternoon wind speed must be less than 4 m/s, and
– the day before peak 1-hr ozone concentration must be at least
70 ppb.
27
AREP
GAW
Developing Criteria (1 of 2)
• Determine the important physical and chemical
processes that influence pollutant concentrations
• Select variables that represent the important processes
– Useful variables may include maximum
temperature, morning and afternoon wind speed,
cloud cover, relative humidity, 500-mb height, 850-
mb temperature, etc.
• Acquire at least three years of recent pollutant data
and surface and upper-air meteorological data

28
AREP
GAW
Developing Criteria (2 of 2)
• Determine the threshold
value for each parameter
that distinguishes high and
low pollutant
concentrations.
• For example, create scatter
plots of pollutant vs.
weather parameters.
• Use an independent data
set (i.e., a data set not used
for development) to
evaluate the selected
criteria.

29
AREP
GAW
Criteria – Strengths
• Easy to operate and modify
• An objective method that alleviates potential human
biases
• Complements other forecasting methods

30
AREP
GAW
Criteria – Limitations
• Selection of the variables and their associated
thresholds is subjective.
• It is not well suited for predicting exact pollutant
concentrations.

31
AREP
GAW Classification and
• CART is a statistical procedure
designed to classify data into
dissimilar groups.
• Similar to criteria method;
however, it is objectively
developed.
• CART enables a forecaster to
develop a decision tree to
predict pollutant concentrations
based on predictor variables
An example Cart tree for maximum ozone
(usually weather) that are well prediction for the greater Athens area.
correlated with pollutant

concentrations.
32
AREP
GAW Classification and
Ozone
(Low–High)
Temp high Temp low
Moderate to Moderate to
High Low
WS - calm WS - strong
WS -light WS - calm
High Low
Moderate Moderate

33
AREP
GAW
CART – How It Works (1 of 2)

The statistical software determines the predictor variables
and the threshold cutoff values by
– Reading a large data set with many possible
predictor variables
– Identifying the variables with the highest correlation
with the pollutant
– Continuing the process of splitting the data set and
growing the tree until the data in each group are
sufficiently uniform

34
AREP
GAW
CART – How It Works (2 of 2)

• To forecast pollutant concentrations using CARTs
– Step through the tree starting at the first split and
determine which of the two groups the data point
belongs in, based on the cut-point for that variable;
– Continue through the tree in this manner until an end
node is reached.
• The mean concentration shown in the end node is the
forecasted concentration.
• Note, slight differences in the values of predicted variables
can produce significant changes in predicted pollutant levels
when the value is near the threshold.

35
AREP
GAW
CART – Example
CART classification PM10 in Santiago, Chile
Node 1
Yes T 8 5 0 < = 1 0 .5 0 0
S TD = 5 0 .1 6 5
No Is the forecasted temperature at
A vg = 1 3 4 .4 0 8
N = 331
850 mb  10.5°C?
Node 2 Node 3
D EL T A P < = 1 9 .5 0 0 F A V G R H < = 1 3 .5 0 0
S TD = 4 0 .3 1 1 S TD = 4 5 .6 2 0
Node x
A vg = 1 0 5 .5 7 3 A vg = 1 5 6 .3 4 0
N = 143 N = 188
Variable and criteria
T e r m in a l T e r m in a l T e r m in a l Node 4
STD = Standard deviation
Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 M I0 = ( 1 ,2 ) Avg = Average PM10 (ug/m3)
S TD = 3 2 .8 8 1 S TD = 3 8 .3 3 1 S TD = 2 0 .0 1 7 S TD = 4 2 .5 2 0 N = number of cases in
A vg = 8 8 .0 7 7 A vg = 1 2 6 .5 6 9 A vg = 3 8 .2 5 0 A vg = 1 5 8 .9 0 8 node
N = 78 N = 65 N = 4 N = 184
T e r m in a l Node 5
Node 4 F A V G T M P < = 1 7 .5 0 0
S TD = 4 1 .3 2 0 S TD = 3 7 .9 7 9
A vg = 1 3 9 .5 6 0 A vg = 1 7 2 .2 2 0
N = 75 N = 109
Variables:
T850 - 12Z 850 MB temp T e r m in a l T e r m in a l
DELTAP - the pressure difference between the base and Node 5 Node 6
top of the inversion S TD = 3 6 .2 2 2 S TD = 2 7 .9 6 1

A vg = 1 8 3 .8 0 0 A vg = 1 4 6 .6 7 6
MI0 - Synoptic weather potential (scale from 1-low to 5-high). N = 75 N = 34
FAVGTMP - 24-hour average temperature at La Paz
FAVGRH - 24-hour average relative humidity at La Paz.
Cassmassi, 1999
36
AREP
GAW
Developing CART
• Determine the important processes that influence pollution.
• Select variables that properly represent the important
processes.
• Create a multi-year data set of the selected variables.
– Choose recent years that are representative of the
current emission profile
– Reserve a subset of the data for independent
evaluation, but ensure it represents all conditions
– Be sure variables are forecasted
• Use statistical software to create a decision tree.
• Evaluate the decision tree using the independent data set.

37
AREP
GAW
CART – Strengths
• Requires little expertise to operate on a daily basis;
runs quickly.
• Complements other subjective forecasting methods.
• Allows differentiation between days with similar
pollutant concentrations if the pollutant concentrations
are a result of different processes. Since PM can form
through multiple pathways, this advantage of CART
can be particularly important to PM forecasting.

38
AREP
GAW
CART – Limitations
• Requires a modest amount of expertise and effort to
develop.
• Slight changes in predicted variables may produce
large changes in the predicted concentrations.
• CART may not predict pollutant concentrations during
periods of unusual emissions patterns due to holidays
or other events.
• CART criteria and statistical approaches may require
periodic updates as emission sources and land use
changes.

39
AREP
GAW Regression Equations –
How They Work (1 of 5)
• Regression equations are
developed to describe the
relationship between pollutant
concentration and other
predictor variables
• For linear regression, the
common form is
y = mx + b
• At right, maximum
temperature (Tmax) is a good [O3] = 1.92*Tmax – 86.8
predictor for peak ozone r = 0.77 r2 = 0.59

40
AREP
• More predictors can be added (“stepwise regression”)
so that the equation looks like this:
y = m1x1 + m2x2 + m3x3 + ……mnxn + b
• Each predictor (xn) has its own “weight” (mn) and the
combination may lead to better forecast accuracy.
• The mix of predictors varies from place to place.

41
AREP
Ozone Regression Equation for Columbus, Ohio
8hrO3 = exp(2.421 + 0.024*Tmax + 0.003*Trange - 0.006*WS1to6 +
0.007*00ZV925 - 0.004*RHSfc00 - 0.002*00ZWS500)
Variable Description
Tmax Maximum temperature in ºF
Trange Daily temperature range

WS1to6 Average wind speed from 1 p.m. to
6 p.m. in knots
00ZV925 V component of the 925-mb wind at 00Z
RHSfc00 Relative humidity at the surface at 00Z
00ZWS500 Wind speed at 500 mb at 00Z

42
AREP
• The various predictors are
not equally weighted, Tmax vs. O3
some are more important
than others.
• It is essential to identify
the strongest predictors Previous day
and work hardest on O3 vs. O3
getting those predictions
right.
Wind Speed
vs. O3
43
AREP
• In an example case,
Accumulated explained variance
most of the variance in
1
O3 is explained by Tmax 0.9
(60%), with the 0.8
Explained Variance (%)

0.7
additional predictors 0.6
adding ~ 15%. 0.5

0.4
• Overall, 75% of the 0.3
variance in observed O3 0.2

0.1
is explained by the 0
ax in 3 0 50 fc
RH
forecast model. Tm Tm
La
gO
W
AA 95
W
S8 W
Ss
• Our job as forecasters is Predictors
to fill in the additional

25% using other tools.
44
AREP
GAW
Developing Regression (1 of 2)
• Determine the important processes that influence
pollutant concentrations.
• Select variables that represent the important processes that
influence pollutant concentrations.
– Choose recent years that are representative of the current
emission profile.
– Reserve a subset of the data for independent evaluation, but
ensure it represents all conditions.
– Be sure variables are forecasted.
• Use statistical software to calculate the coefficients and a constant
for the regression equation.
• Perform an independent evaluation of the regression model.

45
AREP
GAW
Developing Regression (2 of 2)
• Using the natural log of pollutant concentrations as the predictand

may improve performance.
• Do not to “over fit” the model by using too many prediction
variables. An “over-fit” model will decrease the forecast accuracy.
A reasonable number of variables to use is 5 to 10.
• Unique variables should be used to avoid redundancy and
co-linearity.
• Stratifying the data set may improve regression performance.
– Seasons
– Weekend vs. weekday

46
AREP
GAW
Regression – Strengths
• It is well documented and widely used in a variety of
disciplines.
• Software is widely available.
• It is an objective forecasting method that reduces
potential biases arising from human subjectivity.
• It can properly weight relationships that are difficult to
subjectively quantify.
• It can be used in combination with other forecasting
methods, or it can be used as the primary method.

47
AREP
GAW
Regression – Limitations
• Regression equations require a modest amount of
expertise and effort to develop.
• Regression equations tend to predict the mean better
than the tails (i.e., the highest pollutant concentrations)
of the distribution. They will likely underpredict the
high concentrations and overpredict the low
concentrations.
• Regression criteria and statistical approaches may
require periodic updates as emission sources and land
use changes.
• Regression equations require 3-5 years of
measurement data in the region of application,
including many instances of air pollution events, to
develop.
48
AREP
GAW
Neural Networks
• Artificial neural networks are computer algorithms designed
to simulate the human brain in terms of pattern recognition.
• Artificial neural networks can be “trained” to identify patterns
in complicated non-linear data.
• Because pollutant formation processes are complex, neural
networks are well suited for forecasting.
• However, neural networks require about 50% more effort to
develop than regression equations and provide only a
modest improvement in forecast accuracy (Comrie, 1997).

49
AREP
GAW
Neural Networks – How It Works
• Neural networks use weights and
functions to convert input variables INPUT LAYER HIDDEN LAYER OUTPUT LAYER
into a prediction.
Meteorological
• A forecaster supplies the neural and Air Quality
input data Node 1
network with meteorological and A1
air quality data. A2

Node 2
Output Pollutant
Node Prediction
• The software then weights each Node 3
Ai
datum and sums these values with
other weighted datum at each Node j
hidden node.
• The software then modifies the Processing at each hidden node:
1. Weight input variables and sum.
Processing at the output node:
1. Weight the transformed hidden layer
variables and sum.
node data by a non-linear equation Σj = A1W1+ A2W2 …..+ AiWi
2. Transform sum using non-linear
Σ j+1 = B1W13+ B2W14 …..+ BjWl
(transfer function). equation.

Bj=F (Σj)
2. Transform this sum using non-linear
equation and output pollutant prediction.
P =F (Σj+1)
• The modified data are weighted
and summed as they pass to the Comrie, 1997
output node. Figure 4-5
• At the output node, the software

modifies the summed data using
another transfer function and then
outputs a prediction.
50
AREP
GAW
Developing Neural Networks

• Determine the important processes that influence
pollutant concentrations.
• Select variables that represent the important processes.
– Choose recent years that are representative of the current
emission profile.
– Reserve a subset of the data for independent evaluation, but
ensure it represents all conditions.
– Be sure variables are forecasted.
• Train the data using neural network software. See Gardner and
Dorling (1998) for details.
• Test the trained network on a test data set to evaluate the
performance. If the results are satisfactory, the network is ready
to use for forecasting.
51
AREP
GAW
Neural Networks – Strengths

• Can weight relationships that are difficult to
subjectively quantify
• Allows for non-linear relationships between variables
• Predicts extreme values more effectively than
regression equations, provided that the network
developmental set contains such outliers
• Once developed, a forecaster does not need specific
expertise to operate it
• Can be used in combination with other forecasting
methods, or it can be used as the primary forecasting
method

52
AREP
GAW
Neural Networks – Limitations

• Complex and not commonly understood; thus, the
method can be inappropriately applied and difficult to
develop
• Do not extrapolate data well; thus, extreme pollutant
concentrations not included in the developmental data
set will not be taken into consideration in the
formulation of the neural network prediction
• Require 3-5 years of measurement data in the region
of application, including many instances of air pollution
events, to develop.

53
AREP
GAW
Numerical Modeling
• Mathematically represents
the important processes that
affect pollution
• Requires a system of models
to simulate the emission,
transport, diffusion,
transformation, and removal
of air pollution
– Meteorological forecast
models
– Emissions models
– Air quality models

54
AREP
GAW
Numerical Modeling – How It Works

55
AREP
GAW
Processes Treated in Grid Models

• Emissions
– Surface emitted sources (on-road and non-road mobile, area,
low-level point, biogenic, fires)
– Point sources (electrical generation, industrial, other, fires)
• Advection (Transport)
• Dispersion (Diffusion)
• Chemical Transformation
– VOC and NOx chemistry, radical cycle
– For PM aerosol thermodynamics and aqueous-phase chemistry
• Deposition
– Dry deposition (gas and particles)
– Wet deposition (rain out and wash out, gas and particles)
• Boundary conditions
– Horizontal boundary conditions
– Top boundary conditions

56
AREP
GAW
Photochemical Grid Model Concept

57
AREP
GAW
Eulerian Grid Cell Processes

58
AREP
GAW
Coupling Between Grid Cells

59
AREP
GAW
Numerical Modeling – Example

60
AREP
GAW
Developing a Numerical Model

• Design and plan the system
• Identify and allocate the resources
• Acquire required geophysical data
• Implement the data acquisition and processing tools, component
models (emissions, meteorological, and air quality), and analysis
programs.
• Develop the emission inventory
• Test the operation of all data acquisition programs, preprocessor
programs, component models, and analysis programs as a
system
• Integrate data acquisition and processing tools, component
models, and analysis programs into an operational system
• Test, evaluate, and improve the integrated system

61
AREP
GAW
Developing a Numerical Model (1 of 7)
Design and plan the system
• Decide on which pollutants to forecast.
• Define modeling domains considering geography and
emissions sources.
• Select component models considering forecast pollutants,
domains, component model compatibility, availability of
interface programs, and available resources.
• Determine hardware and software requirements.
• Identify sources of meteorological, emissions, and air
quality data.
• Prepare a detailed plan for acquiring and integrating data
acquisition, modeling, and analysis software.
• Plan for continuous real-time evaluation of the modeling
system.
62
AREP
GAW
Identify and allocate the resources
• Staff for system implementation and operations
• Computing and storage consistent with the selection of
domains and models
• Communications for data transfer into and out of the
modeling system
Acquire required geophysical data
• Topographical data
• Land use data

63
AREP
GAW
Implement the data acquisition and processing tools,
component models (emissions, meteorological, and air
quality), and analysis programs.
• Implement each program individually.
• Use standard test cases to verify correct
implementation.

64
AREP
GAW
Develop the emission inventory
• Acquire needed emission inventory related data.
• Review the emissions data for accuracy.
• Be sure that the emission inventory includes the most
recent emissions data available.
• Update the base emission inventory annually.

65
AREP
GAW
Test and Evaluate
• Test the operation of all data acquisition programs, preprocessor
programs, component models, and analysis programs as a
system.
• Review the prognostic meteorological forecast data for accuracy
over several weeks under various weather patterns.
• Run the combined meteorological/emissions/air quality modeling
system in a prognostic mode using a variety of meteorological and
air quality conditions.
• Evaluate the performance of the modeling system by comparing it
with observations.
• Refine the model application procedures (i.e., the methods of
selecting boundary conditions or initial concentration fields, the
number of spin-up days, the grid boundaries, etc.) to improve
performance.

66
AREP
GAW
Integrate data acquisition and processing tools,
component models, and analysis programs into an
operational system
• Implement automated processes for data acquisition,
the daily data exchange from the prognostic
meteorological model and the emissions model to the
3-D air quality model and analysis programs, and
forecast product production.
• Implement automated processes by using scripting
and scheduling tools.
• Verify that the forecast products reflect the actual
model predictions.

67
AREP
GAW
Test, evaluate, and improve the integrated system
• Run the model in real-time test mode for an extended
period. Compare output to observed data and note when
there are model failures.
• After obtaining satisfactory results on a consistent basis,
use the modeling system to forecast pollutant
concentrations.
• Document the modeling system.
• Continuously evaluate the system’s performance by
comparing observations and predictions.
• Implement improvements as needed based on performance
evaluations and new information.

68
AREP
GAW
Numerical Modeling – Strengths
• They are phenomenological based, simulating the physical
and chemical processes that result in the formation and
destruction of air pollutants.
• They can forecast for a large geographic area.
• They can predict air pollution in areas where there are no
air quality measurements.
• The model forecasts can be presented as maps of air
quality to show how predicted air quality varies over a
region hour by hour.
• The models can be used to further understand the
processes that control air pollution in a specific area. For
example, they can be used to assess the importance of
local emissions sources or long-range transport.
69
AREP
GAW
Numerical Modeling – Limitations
• Inaccuracies in the prognostic model forecasts of wind
speeds, wind directions, extent of vertical mixing, and solar
insulation may limit 3-D air quality model performance.
• Emission inventories used in current models are often out of
date and based on uncertain emission factors and activity
levels.
• Site-by-site ozone concentrations predicted by 3-D air
quality forecast models may not be accurate due to small-
scale weather and emission features that are not captured
in the model.
• Substantial staff and computer resources are needed to
establish a scientifically sound and automated air quality
forecast system based on a 3-D air quality model.
70
AREP
GAW
Australian Air Quality

Forecasting System
Peter Manins
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Australia
WMO GURME SAG member
Demonstration Project
Phenomenological – How It Works
AREP
GAW
• Relies on forecaster experience and capabilities

• Forecaster needs good understanding of the processes that influence
pollution such as the synoptic, regional, and local meteorological
conditions, plus air quality characteristics in the forecast area.
• Forecaster synthesizes the information by analyzing observed and
forecasted weather charts, satellite information, air quality observations,
and pollutant predictions from other methods to develop a forecast.
Climatology Case
Studies
Weather
information
Knowledge and
Experience
Final
Pollutant pollutant
information forecast
Tool AQ
predictions
72
AREP
GAW
Phenomenological/Intuition
• Involves analyzing and conceptually
processing air quality and meteorological
information to formulate an air quality
prediction.
• Can be used alone or with other
forecasting methods such as regression or
criteria.
• Is heavily based on the experience
provided by a meteorologist or air quality
scientist who understands the phenomena
that influence pollution.
• This method balances some of the
limitations of objective prediction methods
(i.e., criteria, regression, CART, and
neural networks).
73
AREP
Boston PM2.5 Forecasting Guidelines for Novem
GAW
Phenomenological – Example
0-15 µg/m3 16-40 µg/m3 41-65 µg/m3
Good Moderate Unhealthy for
Upper-air Pattern Strong 500-mb low-pressure Well-defined 500-mb ridge Well-defined
trough encompassing the encompassing the Boston area encompassing
Knowledge can be documented as forecast rules Boston area
or
or
500-mb zonal flow encompassing the 500-mb zonal
or
500-mb zonal flow Boston area Boston area

Boston PM2.5 Forecasting Guidelines for November - March
0-15 µg/m 3
16-40 µg/m 3 encompassing the Boston
41-65 µg/m
area
3 or 66-150 µg/m 3
Good Moderate or 500-mb

Unhealthy for Sensitive short-wave
Groups (USG) trough
Unhealthypassing
Upper-air Pattern Strong 500-mb low-pressure Well-defined 500-mb 500-mb
ridge cut-off low-pressure
Well-defined 500-mb over or just south of No
ridge theUnhealthy
Boston areadays
trough encompassing the encompassing the Boston system areaencompassingencompassing
easternthe Boston
followingarea a Moderate occurred
day during the
Boston area or or last 3 “winters”
or Massachusetts
500-mb zonal flow encompassing the 500-mb zonal flowor encompassing the
500-mb zonal flow Boston area Boston area 500-mb cut-off low-pressure system
encompassing the Boston area or located in the Mid-Atlantic States,
or 500-mb short-wave trough passing
500-mb cut-off low-pressure over or just south of the Boston area south of Boston
system encompassing easternInversion following a Moderate Weak
day or no inversion below Moderate surface inversion at 12Z Strong surfac
Massachusetts or
Strength and 900 mb at 12Z (0700 EST). (0700 EST) that may break during the (0700 EST) th
500-mb cut-off low-pressure system
Duration Inversion may or may not be day
located in the Mid-Atlantic States,
during the day
south of Boston present above 900 mb
Inversion Weak or no inversion belowSurface Wind
Moderate Strongatwesterly-northerly
surface inversion 12Z Lightatto12Z
Strong surface inversion moderate surface winds Light surface
Strength and 900 mb at 12Z (0700 EST). (0700 EST) that may break during the (0700 EST) that is not likely to break
Duration Inversion may or may not be day
winds (> 10 kts) for the
during the day
(0-10 kts) from any direction for the direction for t
present above 900 mb majority of the day majority of the day or
Surface Wind Strong westerly-northerly Light to moderate surface winds Light surface windsor(0-4 kts) from any Moderate to s
winds (> 10 kts) for the (0-10 kts) from any direction for the direction for the majority
Moderateof thetoday
strong south- surface winds
majority of the day majority of the day or
or southwesterly
Moderate to strong south-southwesterly surface winds of the day cau
Moderate to strong south- surface winds (5-20(5-20 kts)
kts) for the for the majority of the day
majority south
southwesterly surface winds of the day causing transport
causing from the
transport from the south
(5-20 kts) for the majority of the day south
Othercausing transport from Zonal flow or a moderate
the south Stationary front located in Stationary fro
Other Zonal flow or a moderate ridge
Stationary front located in at 500 mb, light surface northeastern Massachusetts,
Stationary front located in northeastern north of Massachusett
+ +
ridge at 500 mb, light surface northeastern Massachusetts, winds, and
north a
ofprevious-day
Massachusetts, northBoston
of Boston
winds, and a previous-day Boston +
AQI value in the low “Good” Only 3 USG e
AQI value in the low “Good” Only 3 USG events occurred during the
category category
Consider timing of frontal passage – last 3 “winters” Consider timing of frontal passage – last 3 “winter
or early high concentrationsor can early high concentrations can
Well-defined surface front outweigh the post frontal decrease in surface front
Well-defined outweigh the post frontal decrease in
passed through the area on concentrations
the last day + passed through the area on concentrations
+
the last day
Local convergence or divergence aloft
can negate effects of weak upper- Local convergence or divergence aloft
level trough or ridge
Previous-day In general the air quality conditions increase and decrease by only one AQI category per day
can negate effects of weak upper-
level trough or ridge
AQI Category Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools
+ Previous-day In general the air quality conditions increase and decrease by only one AQI category pe
indicates meteorological variables that tend to overwhelm other factors when present.
AQI Category 74
AREP
GAW Phenomenological –
Forecast Worksheets
Example forecast worksheets for PM2.5
PM2.5 500 mb Surface Inversion/ Clouds/ Transport/

Winds Carryover
(ug/m3) pattern pattern Mixing fog Recirculation
High Light and Strong
Yesterday 46 Ridge Yes Mix No
pressure variable inversion
Weak High Light and Strong
Today 70 Yes Mix No
ridge pressure variable inversion
Cold Moderate
Weak No
Tomorrow 35 front/ west- Yes Mix No
trough inversion
trough northwest
PM2.5 Forecast
Phenomenological Objective Tool Final
(µg/m3)
Today 70 42 65
Tomorrow 35 18 25

75
AREP
GAW
Developing Phenomenological
• Key step is acquiring an understanding of the
important physical and chemical processes that
influence pollution in your area.
– Literature reviews
– Historical case studies of air quality events
– Climatological analysis
• Although much knowledge can be gleaned from these
sources, the greatest benefit to the method is gained
through forecasting experience.

76
AREP
GAW
Phenomenological – Strengths
• Allows for easy integration of new data sources
• Allows for the integration and selective processing of large
amounts of data in a relatively short period of time
• Can be immediately adjusted as new truths are learned
about the processes that influence ozone or PM2.5
• Allows for the effect of unusual emissions patterns
associated with holidays and other events to easily be taken
into account
• Is better for extreme or rare events. Generally, objective
methods such as regression or neural networks do not
capture extreme or rare events
• Is a good complement to other more objective forecasting
methods because it tempers their results with common
sense and experience
77
AREP
GAW
Phenomenological – Limitations
• Requires a high level of expertise.
– The forecaster needs to have a strong
understanding of the processes that influence
pollution.
– The forecaster needs to apply this understanding in
both the developmental and operational processes
of this method.
• Forecaster bias is likely to occur. Using an objective
method as a complement to this method can alleviate
these biases.

78
AREP
GAW
Summary
• Wide range of forecast tools
• Each type has advantages and disadvantages
• More tools result in better forecasts
• Consensus forecasting can produce better
results

79

Train 12 Aq Forecasting Tools

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Train 12 Aq Forecasting Tools

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AREP

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Selecting Predictor Variables (1 of 3)

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Selecting Predictor Variables (2 of 3)

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Selecting Predictor Variables (3 of 3)

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Forecasting Tools and Methods (1 of 2)

Tool development is a function of

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Forecasting Tools and Methods (2 of 2)

For each tool

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Unhealthy Unhealthy Unhealthy

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

on the day after a high ozone day is 3 50 18 80

• Probability of a low ozone day 6 100 21 60

occurring after a low ozone day are 7 110* 22 50

• Persistence method would be 10 80 25 80

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Franklin Smelting: Lead (lbs)

– High pollution days occur most often on Wednesday

Distribution of high ozone days by upper-air weather pattern

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

correlated with pollutant

Temp high Temp low

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

CART – How It Works (1 of 2)

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

CART – How It Works (2 of 2)

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

top of the inversion S TD = 3 6 .2 2 2 S TD = 2 7 .9 6 1

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

Trange Daily temperature range

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools

(60%), with the 0.8

Explained Variance (%)

adding ~ 15%. 0.5

• Overall, 75% of the 0.3

variance in observed O3 0.2

• Our job as forecasters is Predictors

to fill in the additional

Section 12 – Air Quality Forecasting Tools