Quantifying local creation and regional transport using a - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quantifying local creation and regional transport using a hierarchical space-time model of ozone as a function of observed NO x , a latent space-time VOC process, emissions, and meteorology. Community Modeling and Analysis System Conference Chapel Hill, NC October 6, 2008 Amy J. Nail Jacqueline M. Hughes-Oliver John F. Monahan 1

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The models Original, Newmean, Metcov 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 2

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The models Original, Newmean, Metcov 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 3

Goals based on regulatory needs Formulate and assess the ability of a process-based space-time statistical model of 8-hour ozone as a function of NO x and VOC emissions and meteorology to allow: 1. Decomposition into local creation vs. regional transport 2. Space-time predictions backward in time (at any space-time point) 3. Assessment of past emission control programs 4. Assessment of future emission control programs 5. Quantification of uncertainty 4

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The models Original, Newmean, Metcov 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 5

VOC: N=3k dataset (a) (b) 6

VOC Emissions data resolution before and after Resolution In the data In the model Dataset Time Space Time Space Onroad Year County Day Lon, lat Nonroad Year County Day Lon, lat Storage & Transport Year County Day Lon, lat Other area Year County Day Lon, lat Biogenic Month County Day Lon, lat 7

Co-located O 3 and NO x : N=11k dataset (c) (d) 8

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The models Original, Newmean, Metcov 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 9

The model (using N=11k dataset):  N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 1 ) } t in Jan-Apr      N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 2 ) } t in May-Sept  Y t, i = Y C t, i + Y T ν t ∼ t, i + ν t, i , N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 3 ) } t in Oct       N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 4 ) } t in Nov-Dec β 1 + β 2 N t, i + β 3 N 2 t, i + β 4 N t, i ( T t, i − 1 . 4)+ β 5 N 2 t, i ( T t, i − 1 . 4) + β 6 N t, i V t, i + β 7 N t, i T t, i V t, i f 1 ( V N m t ,C i , V OR C i , V NR C i , V ST C i , V OA δ λ ′ t − 1 ,i Y ∗ C i , t − 1 M t,i , W t,i , γ ) + ω t, i f 2 ( ws t, i , wd t, i )  N=54k dataset N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 1 ) } t in Jan-Apr      N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 2 ) } t in May-Sept  ω t ∼ N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 3 ) } t in Oct      N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗  4 ) } t in Nov-Dec 10

“Newmean” model improvement 1. Separate NO x into NO and NO 2 2. Include pressure 3. Include dewpoint as a measure of humidity 4. Include yesterday’s ozone at the same site (nighttime transport) 5. Better transformation of maximum temperature 11

“Metcov” model improvement Before: covariance parameters based on “season” Now: covariance parameters based on windspeed and temperature 12

“Metcov” model:  N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 1 ) } ws ≥ 4 . 6 m/s      N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 2 ) }  maxtemp < 55 Y t, i = Y C t, i + Y T ν t ∼ t, i + ν t, i , N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗ 3 ) } 55 ≤ maxtemp < 75      N { 0 , V t ( φ ∗  4 ) } maxtemp ≥ 75 β 1 + β 2 N t, i + β 3 N 2 t, i + β 4 N t, i ( T t, i − 1 . 4)+ β 5 N 2 t, i ( T t, i − 1 . 4) + β 6 N t, i V t, i + β 7 N t, i T t, i V t, i f 1 ( V N m t ,C i , V OR C i , V NR C i , V ST C i , V OA δ λ ′ t − 1 ,i Y ∗ C i , t − 1 M t,i , W t,i , γ ) + ω t, i f 2 ( ws t, i , wd t, i )  N=54k dataset N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 1 ) } ws ≥ 4 . 6 m/s      N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 2 ) }  maxtemp < 55 ω t ∼ N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗ 3 ) } 55 ≤ maxtemp < 75      N { 0 , W t ( ψ ∗  4 ) } maxtemp ≥ 75 13

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The model 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 14

Predicting unobserved ozone conditional on observed   �     �  Y o  µ o  Σ o Σ ou t  | β , δ, φ t , γ , ψ t ∼ N Y t  , Y t Y t  Y u µ u Σ uo Σ u t Y t Y t Y t β A + M o µ o Y t ≡ X Ao t Z o t γ + δ Λ o t − 1 Y ∗ t t − 1 β A + M u µ u Y t ≡ X Au t Z u t γ + δ Λ u t − 1 Y ∗ t t − 1 Σ o Y t ≡ V o t ( φ t ) + M o t W o t ( φ t ) M o t Σ u Y t ≡ V u t ( φ t ) + M u t W u t ( φ t ) M u t Σ ou Y t ≡ V ou ( φ t ) + M o t W ou ( φ t ) M u t . t t Y u t | Y o t , β , δ, φ t , γ , ψ t ∼ � � Y t ] − 1 � � µ u +Σ uo Y t [Σ o Y o t − µ o , Σ u Y t − Σ uo Y t [Σ o Y t ] − 1 Σ ou N . Y t Y t Y t ���� Meanhat � �� � Yhat 15

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The models Original, Newmean, Metcov 4. Two different predictors for two different purposes 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Discussion and future work 16

Decomposition of ozone (by day) 17

Decomposition of ozone (by rank) 18

Leave out ten percent scatterplots and residuals (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) 19

Leave out ten percent regression diagnostics R 2 N RMSE Slope Intercept Yhat 508 .78 9.6 .91 3.0 .022 .98 Meanhat 508 .64 12 1.2 -6.0 .039 1.6 Reasonable 508 .64 12 .74 6.8 CMAQ .025 1.2 CMAQ 532 2.0E-4 21 -3.8E-5 40 1.1E-4 .91 20

New mean improvements R 2 N Model RMSE Slope Intercept Yhat 508 Original .78 9.6 .91 3.0 ( .022) ( .98) Yhat 508 Newmean .79 9.4 .92 2.9 ( .021) ( .95) Meanhat 508 Original .64 12 1.2 -6.0 ( .039) ( 1.6) Meanhat 508 Newmean .66 12 1.1 -3.1 ( .035) ( 1.5) Reasonable 508 .64 12 .74 6.8 CMAQ ( .025) ( 1.2) 21

Newmean improvements (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) 22

Metcov Improvements R 2 N Model RMSE Slope Intercept Yhat 508 Original .78 9.6 .91 3.0 ( .022) ( .98) Yhat 508 Newmean .79 9.4 .92 2.9 ( .021) ( .95) Yhat 508 Metcov .92 5.9 1.0 -.68 ( .014) ( .61) Meanhat 508 Original .64 12 1.2 -6.0 ( .039) ( 1.6) Meanhat 508 Newmean .66 12 1.1 -3.1 ( .035) ( 1.5) Meanhat 508 Metcov .65 12 1.2 -6.4 ( .039) ( 1.6) Reasonable 508 .64 12 .74 6.8 CMAQ ( .025) ( 1.2) 23

Metcov improvements (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) 24

Outline 1. Scientific and regulatory context → goals 2. The data 3. The model 4. Statistical results in the regulatory context 5. Model performance and CMAQ comparison 6. Two model improvements 7. Discussion and future work 25

Bottom line: • The good news Metcov Yhat predictor performs very well for backward-in-time prediction Meanhat predictor allows us to decompose ozone into created + transported • The bad news We underestimate high ozone values with the meanhat predictor 26

Future work: • Different models for different goals: Build model from ground up based on ozone season for assessment of future emission programs. • New explanatory variables? Solar radiation? Cloud cover? • Explore nonparametric techniques for meanhat predictor. • Expand model to two latent space-time fields (VOC and NO x ) via Bayesian framework 27

Acknowledgements: Daniel Tong, Brian Eder Lance McCluney, Rhonda Thompson, Doug Soloman, Wyatt Appel, Alice Gilleland, Fred Dimmick Shelly Eberly, Bill Cox, Ellen Baldridge Tesh Rao, David Mintz, James Hemby, Neil Frank My email: nail@stat.ncsu.edu Thank you! 28

29