I am attaching several word documents that will give you all a little more information on my scripts, data, and externals.
In general, all my externals can be found in room 287 on one of the bookshelves. This document describes what is on each external. You might have to do a little "digging" to find exactly what you want, but most of it is explained in the documentation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63671067/Externals?secret_password=ttur6t1wu39esfd00at
The next two documents are not so detailed. I made a quick "fact" sheet - called DATA- of where important data can be found - this will help instead of "digging" around the external sheet. Mostly it will help for Caitlin's old runs (SMOKE, WRF, CMAQ) and my new CMAQ runs
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63671344/Data?secret_password=2b3o23k974ub33mvi4xb
The last just states where you can find my early NCL scripts, my newer ones for my MS thesis, ioapi scripts, and where I ran CMAQ and CHEMMECH.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63671304/Script-Notes?secret_password=2e1lrlfyupye3dm1t2xk
If anyone needs to contact me with questions you can contact me at jamorton74@gmail.com
Thanks everyone and it has been my pleasure to work with you all!
J
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Getting PM2.5 from CMAQ
PM2.5 is a big deal. But it is quite a beast to model, and CMAQ does so in a speciated way. This means that CMAQ keeps track of all the different types of PM (from nitrate, sulfate, whatever) and keeps them separate.
That sounds cool, because I mean that would let you look at a specific one if all you actually care about is sulfate for example. Makes sense.
But! It is way less cool for you if you really only care about PM2.5 as a total count, or if you want to use the total count as a frame of reference to a specific kind. The EPA NAAQS regulate PM2.5 as a total, so you really should care about PM2.5 as a whole too.
The reason it is less cool for you is because there is no "total PM2.5" output from CMAQ at all. You have to make it yourself. This sounds easy but can be VERY misleading, so I want to try and help you do this the right way. I did it the wrong way and it caused me more work so let's avoid that. If this confuses you even more I apologize...
There are conflicting options for calculating PM2.5. The way I did it was according to a presentation given by CMAS in 2010. That powerpoint is here: http://arset.gsfc.nasa.gov/umbc/files/Session1Day3/CMAQ-Introduction-for-ARSET.ppt
On slide 10, it says that PM2.5 is equal to the sum of a bunch of different species. So that's what I did. Is that right?
I once thought it was. Then things changed.
Instead, you can follow the approach in this document here:
www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/CMAQ_Evaluation.pdf
This says on page 3 that you did the right thing when you picked your species to count in the mix, but you really should be scaling two of them by 1.167. Is that right?
Possibly? Maybe?
Next we check "Evaluation of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance; Part II—particulate matter" by K. Wyat Appel. Note that this is for version 4.5 and you shouldn't be using that version, but in any case it says not only should you be doing that scaling bit, but also you should be looking at sodium and chlorine species too.
This is also in "A multi–pollutant,risk–based approach to air quality management:Case study for Detroit" by Karen Wesson. Is that right?
Could be?
Sometimes in life and in modeling, you have to make your own answers.
That sounds cool, because I mean that would let you look at a specific one if all you actually care about is sulfate for example. Makes sense.
But! It is way less cool for you if you really only care about PM2.5 as a total count, or if you want to use the total count as a frame of reference to a specific kind. The EPA NAAQS regulate PM2.5 as a total, so you really should care about PM2.5 as a whole too.
The reason it is less cool for you is because there is no "total PM2.5" output from CMAQ at all. You have to make it yourself. This sounds easy but can be VERY misleading, so I want to try and help you do this the right way. I did it the wrong way and it caused me more work so let's avoid that. If this confuses you even more I apologize...
There are conflicting options for calculating PM2.5. The way I did it was according to a presentation given by CMAS in 2010. That powerpoint is here: http://arset.gsfc.nasa.gov/umbc/files/Session1Day3/CMAQ-Introduction-for-ARSET.ppt
On slide 10, it says that PM2.5 is equal to the sum of a bunch of different species. So that's what I did. Is that right?
I once thought it was. Then things changed.
Instead, you can follow the approach in this document here:
www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/CMAQ_Evaluation.pdf
This says on page 3 that you did the right thing when you picked your species to count in the mix, but you really should be scaling two of them by 1.167. Is that right?
Possibly? Maybe?
Next we check "Evaluation of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance; Part II—particulate matter" by K. Wyat Appel. Note that this is for version 4.5 and you shouldn't be using that version, but in any case it says not only should you be doing that scaling bit, but also you should be looking at sodium and chlorine species too.
This is also in "A multi–pollutant,risk–based approach to air quality management:Case study for Detroit" by Karen Wesson. Is that right?
Could be?
Sometimes in life and in modeling, you have to make your own answers.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Mercury Paper Figure Documentation
I am attaching my word document describing the figures in the mercury paper that Tracey and Caitlin wrote. Each page is describing a new figure and what data was used to create it. Most of the figures were made using excel, but some where created with NCL.
http://www.scribd.com/full/61868877?access_key=key-1zae00432g0xpzpcp93a
If figures were made in excel the pathway is bolded in purple.
If figures were made with NCL the pathway to the script is bolded in black. The data for the NCL plots are bolded in blue.
I will posting more documentation on other figures I have made for my thesis work.
Jami
http://www.scribd.com/full/61868877?access_key=key-1zae00432g0xpzpcp93a
If figures were made in excel the pathway is bolded in purple.
If figures were made with NCL the pathway to the script is bolded in black. The data for the NCL plots are bolded in blue.
I will posting more documentation on other figures I have made for my thesis work.
Jami
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)