Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Gregory R Carmichael

Publications and source records attributed to Gregory R Carmichael.

Evaluation and Intercomparison of Wildfire Smoke Forecasts from Multiple Modeling Systems for the 2019 Williams Flats Fire

Wildfire smoke is one of the most significant concerns of human and environmental health, associated with its substantial impacts on air quality, weather, and climate. However, biomass burning emissions and smoke remain among the largest sources of uncertainties in air quality forecasts. In this study, we evaluate the smoke emissions and plume forecasts from 12 state-of-the-art air quality forecasting systems during the Williams Flats fire in Washington State, US, August 2019, which was intensively observed during the Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) field campaign. Model forecasts with lead times within 1 d are intercompared under the same framework based on observations from multiple platforms to reveal their performance regarding fire emissions, aerosol optical depth (AOD), surface PM2.5, plume injection, and surface PM2.5 to AOD ratio. The comparison of smoke organic carbon (OC) emissions suggests a large range of daily totals among the models, with a factor of 20 to 50. Limited representations of the diurnal patterns and day-to-day variations of emissions highlight the need to incorporate new methodologies to predict the temporal evolution and reduce uncertainty of smoke emission estimates. The evaluation of smoke AOD (sAOD) forecasts suggests overall underpredictions in both the magnitude and smoke plume area for nearly all models, although the high-resolution models have a better representation of the fine-scale structures of smoke plumes. The models driven by fire radiative power (FRP)-based fire emissions or assimilating satellite AOD data generally outperform the others. Additionally, limitations of the persistence assumption used when predicting smoke emissions are revealed by substantial underpredictions of sAOD on 8 August 2019, mainly over the transported smoke plumes, owing to the underestimated emissions on 7 August. In contrast, the surface smoke PM2.5 (sPM2.5) forecasts show both positive and negative overall biases for these models, with most members presenting more considerable diurnal variations of sPM2.5. Overpredictions of sPM2.5 are found for the models driven by FRP-based emissions during nighttime, suggesting the necessity to improve vertical emission allocation within and above the planetary boundary layer (PBL). Smoke injection heights are further evaluated using the NASA Langley Research Center's Differential Absorption High Spectral Resolution Lidar (DIAL-HSRL) data collected during the flight observations. As the fire became stronger over 3–8 August, the plume height became deeper, with a day-to-day range of about 2–9 km a.g.l. However, narrower ranges are found for all models, with a tendency of overpredicting the plume heights for the shallower injection transects and underpredicting for the days showing deeper injections. The misrepresented plume injection heights lead to inaccurate vertical plume allocations along the transects corresponding to transported smoke that is 1 d old. Discrepancies in model performance for surface PM2.5 and AOD are further suggested by the evaluation of their ratio, which cannot be compensated for by solely adjusting the smoke emissions but are more attributable to model representations of plume injections, besides other possible factors including the evolution of PBL depths and aerosol optical property assumptions. By consolidating multiple forecast systems, these results provide strategic insight on pathways to improve smoke forecasts.

AOD↗

Understanding and Improving Model Representation of Aerosol Optical Properties for a Chinese Haze Event Measured During KORUS-AQ

KORUS-AQ was an international cooperative air quality field study in South Korea that measured local and remote sources of air pollution affecting the Korean Peninsula during May–June 2016. Some of the largest aerosol mass concentrations were measured during a Chinese haze transport event (24 May). Air quality forecasts using the WRF-Chem model with aerosol optical depth (AOD) data assimilation captured AOD during this pollution episode but overpredicted surface particulate matter concentrations in South Korea, especially PM2.5, often by a factor of 2 or larger. Analysis revealed multiple sources of model deficiency related to the calculation of optical properties from aerosol mass that explain these discrepancies. Using in situ observations of aerosol size and composition as inputs to the optical properties calculations showed that using a low-resolution size bin representation (four bins) underestimates the efficiency with which aerosols scatter and absorb light (mass extinction efficiency). Besides using finer-resolution size bins (8–16 bins), it was also necessary to increase the refractive indices and hygroscopicity of select aerosol species within the range of values reported in the literature to achieve better consistency with measured values of the mass extinction efficiency (6.7 m2 g−1 observed average) and light-scattering enhancement factor (f(RH)) due to aerosol hygroscopic growth (2.2 observed average). Furthermore, an evaluation of the optical properties obtained using modeled aerosol properties revealed the inability of sectional and modal aerosol representations in WRF-Chem to properly reproduce the observed size distribution, with the models displaying a much wider accumulation mode. Other model deficiencies included an underestimate of organic aerosol density (1.0 g cm−3 in the model vs. observed average of 1.5 g cm−3) and an overprediction of the fractional contribution of submicron inorganic aerosols other than sulfate, ammonium, nitrate, chloride, and sodium corresponding to mostly dust (17 %–28 % modeled vs. 12 % estimated from observations). These results illustrate the complexity of achieving an accurate model representation of optical properties and provide potential solutions that are relevant to multiple disciplines and applications such as air quality forecasts, health impact assessments, climate projections, solar power forecasts, and aerosol data assimilation.

Pablo E. Saide↗

The Atmosphere Observing System (AOS): Synergistic Aerosol, Cloud, Convection and Precipitation Measurement and Modeling Systems

The 2017 Decadal Survey (DS) highlighted Earth System Science themes, science and application questions, and several high priority objectives that have led to the inclusion of Aerosols (A) and Clouds-Convection-Precipitation (CCP) as Designated Observables (DOs). On June 1, 2018, several NASA centers (GSFC, LaRC, JPL, MSFC, GRC and ARC) submitted a joint Study Plan to the NASA Earth Science Division for the Aerosol (A) and Cloud, Convection, and Precipitation (CCP) Pre-formulation Study (ACCP), with the ACCP Study concluding in early 2021. The new mission now in pre-phase A is being referred to as the Atmosphere Observing System (AOS), an integral part of NASA’s Earth System Observatory (ESO) strategy. The DS and the ACCP team recognized the science merit in combining the A and CCP DOs for both enhancing the ability to address a number of science objectives and also to provide an expanded capability to address additional objectives beyond those of the individual DOs. A critical element of the ACCP observing strategy is to make extensive use of new passive and active sensors as well as of the so-called Program-of-Record (PoR), complemented by a fully integrated sub-orbital component. In order to achieve maximum benefit, all these observations need to be integrated into comprehensive observing and modeling/data assimilation systems. Such an approach requires comprehensive model-data synthesis capabilities that needs to be conceived in conjunction with the space-based and suborbital components of AOS. In this presentation we will summarize the major science goals of AOS including cloud feedbacks, atmospheric convection, emphasizing aerosol processes and aerosol radiative effects, and the synergistic aspects of clouds-precipitation-aerosol interactions. We will describe examples of how AOS data will be used across space and time to better initialize forecasts and train modeling systems, and to infuse models and data assimilation systems with AOS data for advancing operational predictions and to generate expanded hindcasts and reconstruction of the climate record.

Arlindo da Silva↗