• From Maryland
  • Take I-495 East to exit 23A (Kenilworth Ave/MD-201 S). Stay on 201 S and make a right onto River Rd. Take the 1st right onto University Research Court. The NCWCP building is at the end of the cul-de-sac on the left-hand side. 
• From Virginia
  • Merge onto I-495 OUTERLOOP/Capital Beltway/ toward Alexandria. Take the I-295 N/National Harbor exit, EXIT 2A-B, toward Washington. Keep right to take DC-295 N toward US-50 E (crossing into Maryland stay in Middle lane) to 201 North Kenilworth Ave. Turn left onto River Rd. Take the 1st right onto University Research Court. The NCWCP building is at the end of the cul-de-sac on the left-hand side. 
• From Washington DC
  • Take I-295 North (Middle lane) to 201 North Kenilworth Ave. (Cross East-West Hwy/MD-410) left onto River Rd. Take the 1st right onto University Research Court. The NCWCP building is at the end of the cul-de-sac on the left-hand side. 
• Via Metrorail
  • The NCWCP is accessible via the Green Line to the College Park/University of Maryland station. It is a 15-20 minute walk (to the east down River Road) from the station to the NCWCP.
    • Station information is available on the WMATA website, https://wmata.com/rider-guide/stations/college-park.cfm 

NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction (NCWCP), College park, MD
Conference center rooms A & B

Remote attendance available via Google Meet:
Accessible from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
Video call link: https://meet.google.com/enr-iuwp-gxz
Or dial: ‪(US) +1 409-422-5547‬ PIN: ‪178 666 761‬#
More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/enr-iuwp-gxz?pin=3071219925301

Day 1: Wednesday, October 9, 2024
NCWCP Conference Center, Rooms A & B
Facilitator: Youngsun Jung; notetaker: Jack Kain

Day 2: Thursday, October 10, 2024
NCWCP Conference Center, Rooms A & B
Facilitator: Youngsun Jung; notetaker: Jack Kain

2024 Air Quality Forecasters’ Focus Group Workshop
Workshop Summary
Download Summary PDF

Workshop in-person attendees (October 2024)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS), under its air quality program, the National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC), hosted the annual Air Quality Forecasters’ Focus Group Workshop on October 9-10, 2024. The NAQFC develops and implements operational air quality (AQ) prediction models to provide AQ forecast guidance for forecasters employed by local and state agencies. These agencies disseminate the forecasts to the public through NWS Forecast Offices and other outlets. This annual workshop provides a unique opportunity for AQ forecasters to learn more about the forecast guidance they receive from NOAA and the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC). At the same time, it provides a forum for forecasters to share targeted feedback and insights with model developers and AQ researchers from NOAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), academia, and MSC. The purpose of the workshop is to review assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the AQ model guidance, examine current model development and research initiatives, and use forecaster feedback to identify gaps and/or misalignment between model performance, current R&D initiatives, and forecasters’ needs.

The workshop was conducted in a hybrid format, with 122 registered participants, including 32 in-person attendees, and 30 presenters (combination of in-person and virtual presenters). It consisted of 4 distinct sessions. The first session included presentations on model-forecast capabilities in both the U.S. and Canada, emission products provided by both the EPA (ground-based) and NOAA (satellite based), visualization and observational analysis systems, and methods for correcting model-output biases.

The second session focused on feedback from state and local AQ forecasters. This included contributions from 15 different forecasters from 10 different state agencies, with 10 forecasters presenting in-person. The forecasters shared their insights related to interpreting the NAQFC forecast guidance for specific forecasting applications, the strengths and limitations of different forecast guidance, and areas where NAQFC services could be improved and/or enhanced. For example, several forecasters noted a relationship between peak ozone concentrations and meteorological variables, particularly humidity and localized air flows. Furthermore, they reported that ozone concentration tends to be anomalously high when wildfire smoke is present, perhaps due to volatile organic compounds or other ozone precursors that can be present in high concentrations within smoke plumes. 

In the third session, model developers from the NWS Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) highlighted full adoption of the Unified-Forecasting System (UFS) framework and many notable scientific advances. On the regional-model side, they discussed specific new capabilities in Air Quality Model version 7.0.7 (AQMv7.0.7), which was implemented in May 2024, an upgrade to AQMv7.0.8 in October 2024, and plans for major enhancements to both air-chemistry and meteorology in AQMv8.0, scheduled for implementation in late 2025. In terms of their global model, EMC scientists underscored the significance of planned enhancements to data assimilation and prediction of atmospheric composition and aerosols, as well as upgrades to model physics, all slated for operational implementation in 2026.   

The fourth session provided a longer-term vision for the future, with presentations from NOAA Research, including scientists from the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) and the Global Systems Laboratory (GSL). The ARL material focused on efforts to upgrade atmospheric chemistry representations to be consistent with newer versions of the EPA’s Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, using newer and higher resolution emissions information, better representation of vegetative impacts, and better utilization of observations-of-opportunity to improve models. The GSL presentation highlighted smoke and dust prediction capabilities with an operational-prototype model covering all of North America, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico with a high resolution (3-km spacing) grid.

The final afternoon of the workshop focused on synthesizing the information from the earlier sessions to ensure alignment between the needs of frontline forecasters and the research and development services provided by NOAA.  Several topics of discussion are highlighted below: 

1. Workshop leaders and model developers cited the value of forecasters’ detailed analyses of specific events that impacted their forecast areas in the past year, as well as localized verification efforts by forecast agencies. Specifically, the leaders and developers noted that 
   1. Broader scale verification statistics that are heavily relied upon by developers can sometimes hide important/nuanced details in localized model performance.
   2. Forecasters who utilize the model guidance on a regular basis to issue public forecasts develop unique insights into model strengths and weaknesses.
2. Forecasters noted that, while ozone (and to a lesser extent, PM2.5) concentrations are clearly correlated with ambient weather, meteorological fields predicted by NOAA’s Air Quality Model (AQM) are not routinely disseminated. Availability of meteorological fields could help forecasters assess AQM strengths and weaknesses and better discern situations in which model forecasts for ozone and PM2.5 are missing key ingredients.  Further, the same could be said for input emissions fields.
   1. Workshop leaders showed prototype model-output display options  that combine meteorological fields with ozone and PM2.5 output from the AQM, including time-series of data at selected points, as well as plan-view overlays. 
   2. Action: Workshop leaders and AQM model developers agreed to develop a plan for disseminating meteorological fields from AQM forecasts in the coming year and explore options for disseminating input emissions.
3. Forecasters expressed a desire for a formal description of the new inline AQM. Specifically, they wanted to better understand, how the AQM is related to the EPA’s CMAQ model and NOAA’s Global Forecast System (GFS), from which it was derived.
   1. Response: AQM developers explained that the latest version of AQM (AQMv7) was developed within the Unified Forecasting System (UFS) framework. In this framework, the fundamental CMAQ chemical mechanisms and GFS version 16 physics suite are combined to yield a unique regional air quality prediction system that formally couples the chemical and meteorological strengths of the parent modeling systems.
   2. Recommendation: AQMv7 and later should be referred to as iterations of the UFS AQM to clearly distinguish it from previous off-line, uncoupled versions (i.e., AQMv6 and earlier).
   3. Attendees were directed to the latest public presentation on the UFS AQM and advised that a scientific-journal article paper on this model is currently under review for formal publication.
4. Forecasters expressed the opinion that the UFS AQM needs higher horizontal resolution to resolve flow patterns in complex terrain and near land/water interfaces.
   1. Mitigation: AQMv8 implementation is targeted for late 2025 and is expected to be configured with 25% higher resolution (9 km grid spacing); subsequent model updates are expected to have even higher resolution. 

In summary, state and local AQ forecasters are the primary customers of the NAQFC program. AQM developers and program leaders rely heavily on forecaster feedback to inform both long and short term strategies that better serve the needs of the public for reliable and accurate AQ forecasts. The 2024 Air Quality Forecaster Focus Group Workshop continued the tradition of bringing researchers, developers, and users together annually to ensure proper alignment and shared prioritization between all interest groups. These annual workshops are clearly having a significant positive impact and plans are already in place to extend this valuable exercise into 2025 and beyond.