As expected, on average, the near-surface meteorological fields show a significant degradation over time in the forecasts (when nudging is not used), while the dynamic analyses maintain nearly constant statistical scores in time compared against NWS observations. The use of nudged MM5 fields in CMAQ generally results in better skill scores for daily maximum 1 h ozone mixing ratio simulations when compared against AQS observations. On average, the skill of the daily maximum 1 h ozone simulation deteriorates significantly over time when non-nudged MM5 fields are used in CMAQ. The daily maximum 1 h ozone mixing ratio also degrades over time in the CMAQ simulation that uses MM5 dynamic analyses, although to a much lesser degree, despite no aggregate loss of skill over time in the dynamic analyses themselves.
Using the collocated CASTNET sites, comparisons of 2 m temperature, 10 m wind speed, and surface shortwave radiation show a significant degradation over time when nudging is not used, while the dynamic analyses maintain consistent statistical scores over time for those fields. Using nudging in MM5 to generate dynamic analyses, on average, leads to a CMAQ simulation of hourly ozone with smaller error. Domain-wide error patterns in specific meteorological fields do not directly or systematically translate into error patterns in ozone prediction at the CASTNET sites, regardless of whether or not nudging is used in MM5, but large broad-scale errors in shortwave radiation prediction by MM5 directly affect ozone prediction by CMAQ at specific sites. These results affirm the advantage of using nudging in MM5 to create the meteorological characterization for CMAQ for retrospective simulations, and it is shown that MM5-based dynamic analyses are robust at the surface throughout 5.5 day simulations.
Disclaimer: The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW13921548. This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.
Supplementary URL: