case/ATOM1_2016 Experiment E0

[zhanglikate]

Please check the records in the file: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EWZV4VOvvx5d4rpjXp5dGJlP7Pa67HuA_GaC9xuGugw/edit

[drpeppurr]

Please see the vertical profiles for exp4-exp6 (v4_na1,v5_na1,v6_na1). TL;DR: in exp6, sulfate and ammonium are both improved slightly in the northern hemisphere. Dust in exp6, sampled along ATom flighttracks, looks very similar to that in exp5, despite a further increase in dust wet scavenge in exp6 (0.7) compared to that in exp5 (0.6). Overall dust is still biased low in the aged dust plumes (B) and is overestimated in the middle-upper troposphere over the tropical Atlantic near Africa (G).

Basin-wide averages:

Break down: A: North America + High Latitude Northern Pacific/Atlantic B: Subtropical Northern Pacific C: Tropical Pacific D: Subtropical Southern Pacific E: Southern Ocean F: Subtropical Southern Atlantic G: Tropical Atlantic (African dust/biomass burning) H: Subtropical Northern Atlantic (African dust/biomass burning)

[drpeppurr]

Now a brief AOD evaluation for exp4-exp6 (v4_na1,v5_na1,v6_na1). I'm showing both total and speciated AOD. Note: we will perform a much detailed AOD evaluation (e.g., closely examine MEE, hygroscopicity, as well as the underlying assumptions) once the case configuration is frozen.

TL;DR: The model does capture roughly half of the variability of observed AOD, with a linear regression slope of 0.37 (v6) and r of 0.59. The model underestimates dust AOD during the extreme dust event over the tropical Atlantic (near Africa). The model also tends to overestimate sulfate+organic+nitrate AOD over the high latitude Pacific (55-70N), which is at least partially driven by a high bias in OC.

p.s. ATom observationally derived AOD reports the sum of sulfate, organics, and nitrate, since they're mostly internally mixed. They can, however, distinguish biomass burning particles, which also contains considerable amount of organics. Therefore, I'm summarizing AOD from sulfate/organics/nitrate and biomass burning particles, and compare to the modeled AOD from sulfate+nitrate+OC.

[drpeppurr]

Here are the altitude-latitude curtains for v6.

What's really stands out is that, the model is missing nitrate from biomass burning plumes.

BC and OC

Sulfate, ammonium, nitrate

dust and sea salt

[drpeppurr]

Also made this for fun. This is how NASA GOES-5 folks like to plot their aerosols, which is semi-quantitative but it's fun. Good for high-level overview type of presentations.

Yellow-brown is dust, yellow-ish green is carbonaceous, purple is sulfate, and blue-white is sea salt.

[perthsb]

@bbakernoaa I put Exp5 and Exp6 surface Dust conc difference at each day here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h9O13I8-1QA5q8hc37t2GLGGk3k72C4F/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100966050662930876047&rtpof=true&sd=true

[bbakernoaa]

@drpeppurr That's pretty awesome! It's a fun way to visualize it at least.

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr Nice view. Just curious, which color will dominant one point if there are 5 species, probably the one with biggest value.

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb

       Now I have the results of EXP.7 using GB  emission. I think you compare the run from EXP. 4-7 together. Here is information about EXP.7

The same model code as EXP.4, EXP.5, EXP.6 *.rc files for biomass burning emission is used GBBEPx the convective scavenging values is the same as EXP.6 Output: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/NASA_C96_fire/v7_na1

Comparisons of EXP.4-7: EXP.4: HTAP and QFED EMISSION, fscav_aero: dust 0.2 EXP.5: CEDS_2014 and QFED EMISSION, fscav_aero: dust 0.6 EXP.6: CEDS_2019 and QFED EMISSION, fscav_aero: dust 0.7 EXP.7: CEDS_2014 and GB EMISSION, fscav_aero: dust 0.7

[zhanglikate]

@bbakernoaa @drpeppurr @perthsb I have rerun the EXP.7 with the GB data fixed by Barry. Please find the results at: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/NASA_C96_fire/v7_na1

[perthsb]

@zhanglikate @drpeppurr @bbakernoaa OC AOD in Exp7 looks all ok now : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15RWXVY2AEbICalt1JbF4gAlJOatKLmXu/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100966050662930876047&rtpof=true&sd=true

[perthsb]

@zhanglikate @drpeppurr @bbakernoaa Exp7 comparison with ICAP and GEOS5 : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lI9EWmpLjjpAh7aa-b4wSSjhVeql7J5Z/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100966050662930876047&rtpof=true&sd=true

[drpeppurr]

Please see the vertical profiles for exp4-exp7 (v4_na1,v5_na1,v6_na1,v7_na1).

TL;DR:

• exp7 uses GB fire, which leads to higher BC and OC. exp7 is otherwise the same as exp6.
• sulfate and ammonium are both improved slightly in the northern hemisphere in exp7. Still biased high in the NH.
• Dust in exp7 and exp6, sampled along ATom flighttracks, look very similar to that in exp5, despite a further increase in dust wet scavenge in exp7/exp6 (0.7) compared to that in exp5 (0.6). Overall dust is still biased low in the aged dust plumes (B) and is overestimated in the middle-upper troposphere over the tropical Atlantic near Africa (G).
• BC overestimated on the Pacific side but underestimated from African fires. OC overestimated in all fire plumes especially in exp7 shows high bias (GB fire). Still no nitrate from fires
• BC high bias in middle-upper troposphere likely due to wet scavenging or transport

Basin-wide averages:

Break down: A: North America + High Latitude Northern Pacific/Atlantic B: Subtropical Northern Pacific C: Tropical Pacific D: Subtropical Southern Pacific E: Southern Ocean F: Subtropical Southern Atlantic G: Tropical Atlantic (African dust/biomass burning) H: Subtropical Northern Atlantic (African dust/biomass burning)

[drpeppurr]

Now AOD evaluation for exp4-exp7 (v4_na1,v5_na1,v6_na1,v7_na1).

TL;DR: The model does capture roughly half of the variability of observed AOD, with a linear regression slope of 0.42 (v7) and r of 0.62, slightly "improved" compared to v6 but

-> likely for wrong reasons <-

See the vertical profiles comparison: OC in v7 is actually worse. The model underestimates dust AOD during the extreme dust event over the tropical Atlantic (near Africa). The model also tends to overestimate sulfate+organic+nitrate AOD over the high latitude Pacific (55-70N), which is at least partially driven by a high bias in OC.

[drpeppurr]

Now the altitude-latitude curtains for v7.

A few things stand out:

• Again the model is missing nitrate from biomass burning plumes.
• BC slightly underestimate in fire plumes from the Atlantic side (Africa) but overestimated from the Pacific side. OC is high in all fire plumes. So BC/OC ratio goes different directions.
• BC and OC consistently overestimated in the middle-upper troposphere
• Dust overestimated in the middle-upper troposphere over Atlantic

BC and OC from fires (HCN: fire tracer; CO: fire or anthropogenic tracer)

Sea salt and dust

Sulfate, ammonium, nitrate

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb , Please find the EXP.8 as following, which is used the P7.1-gocart-dev source code: EXP.8: ATom-1 (C96, 20160715-20160823, analysis from 20160729), Aug 31, 2021 The model code has been updated to use P7.1-gocart-dev biomass burning emission is used QFED, rc files are in /scratch2/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/lzhang/rc_file/UFS-Aerosol-Config/rc.ZL-dev the convective scavenging values has been updated Output: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v1

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb I just finished rerunning EXP.8, please find the results at:

    I would like to suggest only compare EXP.6, 7, 8. 

/scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v1

EXP.8: ATom-1 (C96, 20160715-20160823, analysis from 20160729), Aug 31, 2021 The model code has been updated to use P7.1-gocart-dev biomass burning emission is used QFED, rc files are in /scratch2/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/lzhang/rc_file/UFS-Aerosol-Config/rc.ZL-dev Dust alpha=2.4 the convective scavenging values have been updated as : fscav_aero="'*:0.6','nh3:0.0','so2:0.0','msa:0.0','dms:0.0', 'so4:0.3', 'dust1:0.8', 'dust2:0.8', 'dust3:0.8', 'dust4:0.8', 'dust5:0.8’"

[perthsb]

@zhanglikate I looked into Exp8 and looks like it has more OC, bc and sulfate than Exp6 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1S1_ycRIbWwak60bmg8LCKWIwlK0QNjkz?usp=sharing

[drpeppurr]

Here are the plots for exp6-exp8:

I have not got a chance to fully digest exp8. Looks like:

• there's more sulfate
• BC is greatly improved compared to v7 and v6
• OC is similar to v7 and v6 (too high in anthropogenic outflows, a bit high in biomass burning plumes) and too low in the middle-upper troposphere <- this is really what we should expect since we do not have secondary production. Previous rounds (e.g., v7, v6) OC looks not bad in the middle-upper troposphere but likely due to wet scavenging being not efficient enough
• dust is also improved over the Atlantic. A bit too low over the Pacific but it's always like that
• sea salt: look the same as v7 and v6
• AOD: similar to v7 and v6.

== edit on 3 Sep 2021 == == sorry the Pacific vs Atlantic basin-wide average plot I uploaded last night was incorrect == == please find the correct one here ==

[zhanglikate]

Siyuan,

     Thanks very much for the results.

Kate

On Sep 2, 2021, at 10:34 PM, drpeppurr @.***> wrote:

Here are the plots for exp6-exp8:

I have not got a chance to fully digest exp8. Looks like:

there's more sulfate BC is greatly improved compared to v7 and v6 OC is similar to v7 and v6 (too high in anthropogenic outflows, a bit high in biomass burning plumes) and too low in the middle-upper troposphere <- this is really what we should expect since we do not have secondary production. Previous rounds (e.g., v7, v6) OC looks not bad in the middle-upper troposphere but likely due to wet scavenging being not efficient enough dust is also improved over the Atlantic. A bit too low over the Pacific but it's always like that sea salt: look the same as v7 and v6 AOD: similar to v7 and v6. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950366-2402d923-120e-4e87-90b1-285f6c379af0.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950482-537f2c2d-edb6-4ed0-ab15-35afdc364250.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950490-9e58540a-b579-49ef-a611-a507283fa9f0.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950492-802bc707-a7a7-485a-bffe-50bb59c25bdb.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950501-25e9eee1-e2bc-4de5-85af-5362afdcbc92.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950507-40fbfd4b-9907-45d5-bdf3-c396f76d07bb.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950514-21766e0a-7579-4fa5-8863-7b9bc27a5bdf.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950519-3d5df17a-caea-49d7-8b55-70347f59f755.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950907-cedac057-8b4c-4dd5-b3f5-603eee6e0507.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/131950913-60e35873-86c8-4b92-8c94-5838850e6115.jpg — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/noaa-oar-arl/UFS-Aerosol-Config/issues/3#issuecomment-912248345, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APJPDRA4UFFXONMITUPEJ7LUABF6HANCNFSM5BJMXRGQ. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[drpeppurr]

sorry the Pacific vs Atlantic basin-wide average plot I uploaded last night was incorrect this is the correct one I also edited the previous post. I apologize for the trouble

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb Please find a new ATOM run using the same configuration as 2019 FIREX run at: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v2 , here is details of the EXP.9

EXP.9: ATom-1 (C96, 20160715-20160823, analysis from 20160729), Sep, 10. 2021 The model code has been updated to use P7.1-gocart-dev biomass burning emission is used GBBPEx, rc files are in /scratch2/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/lzhang/rc_file/UFS-Aerosol-Config/rc.ZL-dev Dust alpha=2.4 export IAER=5111 the convective scavenging values have been updated as : fscav_aero="'*:0.4','so2:0.0','msa:0.0','dms:0.0', 'so4:0.5','bc1:0.6','bc2:0.6' 'dust1:0.7', 'dust2:0.7', 'dust3:0.7', 'dust4:0.7', 'dust5:0.7'"

[drpeppurr]

Hello folks, I apologize for the late follow up. A lot going on on our end. Anyway, here are our analysis for the latest runs:

v7, v8, and v9_oper: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/v2_real_fv3_chem/v9_oper_compare/ v10: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v2/

Note that v9_oper (same as the operational) does not have ammonium or nitrate.

[zhanglikate]

@perthsb @drpeppurr

Please find my new experiment at:/scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v3

More information about the experiments can be found as follows:

EXP.12: ATom-1 (C96, 20160715-20160823, analysis from 20160729), Oct, 4. 2021 The model code has been updated to use P7.1-gocart-dev biomass burning emission is used GBBPEx, rc files are in /scratch2/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/lzhang/rc_file/UFS-Aerosol-Config/rc.ZL-dev Dust alpha=2.4 export IAER=5111 the convective scavenging values have been updated as : fscav_aero="'*:0.4','so2:0.0','msa:0.0','dms:0.0', 'so4:0.5','bc1:0.6','bc2:0.6' 'dust1:0.7', 'dust2:0.7', 'dust3:0.7', 'dust4:0.7', 'dust5:0.7'" Output: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v3

[drpeppurr]

I apologize folks I've been having this weird hera login issue and I was locked out of hera for 25 days! But I am back now.

Please see the evaluation for ATom-1 for Exp9 and Exp12: Exp9: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/v2/ Exp12: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom1_v3/

ATom-2, 3, and 4 will follow up

[drpeppurr]

ATom-2:

Exp13: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom2_v1/

[zhanglikate]

The results are encouraging! Looking forward to see 3 and 4.

Kate

On Oct 26, 2021, at 3:16 PM, drpeppurr @.***> wrote:

ATom-2:

Exp13: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom2_v1/

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952561-f81a58eb-f9e4-436b-b93d-55fd1e065884.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952588-cef6cc50-1a9e-40a7-bce4-4e6f0d35ec8e.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952591-b6f66b1c-a4e2-4b2b-842f-eb757160bb54.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952595-860f021d-c6b7-4ccd-8136-de4d3e6cdb4c.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952601-387efb92-a23c-4c5d-8fd7-8b3b429f6a3f.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952605-78fd068b-8f0c-4761-abf8-d4ae9d9720ee.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952609-bae1d368-c153-4b8b-8411-0f2d8d666210.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138952618-7ccd5873-4192-42cf-ab1b-174ae5d6dd19.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33731920/138962103-367018f0-0525-4f04-897f-45da96fec958.jpg — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/noaa-oar-arl/UFS-Aerosol-Config/issues/3#issuecomment-952333336, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APJPDRHBEHTX5L7EJYQBRJLUI4LCHANCNFSM5BJMXRGQ. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[drpeppurr]

ATom-3:

Exp14: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom3_v1/

NOTE: we do not have PALMS measurements for ATom-3 and ATom-4, therefore no dust or sea salt

[drpeppurr]

ATom-4:

Exp15: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom4_v1/

NOTE: we do not have PALMS measurements for ATom-3 and ATom-4, therefore no dust or sea salt

[zhanglikate]

@perthsb @drpeppurr Since the previous runs are using the code with O3 adjustments in the precondition part, which has been confirmed would has huge impact on the Met. Fileds after long-term integration. To be safe, I just finished a run without O3 adjustments in the precondition to quantify the impact on our cycling runs.

     Please find the results at /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom1_v3_noaj

Please compare with the one /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom1_v3

Thanks.

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb

            I have a results by tuning large wet deposition, could you please help to evaluate it at: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom1_vlw

  Also, please compare with the results at: /scratch1/BMC/gsd-fv3-dev/NCEPDEV/global/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_fire/atom1_v3_noaj

 Thanks.

Kate

[zhanglikate]

@drpeppurr @perthsb I have got the C384 run finished. Can you please help to evaluate the results of C384 VS. C96 for ATOM_1 with the updated dust scheme:

1) C384: /scratch2/NCEPDEV/naqfc/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C384_dt 2) C96: /scratch2/NCEPDEV/naqfc/Kate.Zhang/fv3gfs/comrot/DEV_C96_dt/atom1_dtn

[perthsb]

@zhanglikate Here is the comparison : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AU27Rok_MVEjdWTFdTo_tMwNLMnP1JrJ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100966050662930876047&rtpof=true&sd=true