Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...

Table 5‐10. Final Rankings of CALPUFF CTEX5 Sensitivity Tests using the RANK statistic.
Sensitivity RANK MM5 CALGRID
Met
Ranking Test Statistics (km) (km) RMAX1/RMAX2 Obs
1 EXP6C 2.19 12 4 10/100 Yes
2 EXP5D 2.10 36 4 ‐‐ No
3 BASEA 2.06 80 18 500/1000 Yes
4 BASEC 2.05 80 18 10/100 Yes
5 EXP5A 2.03 36 4 500/1000 Yes
6 EXP6A 2.02 12 4 500/1000 Yes
7 EXP4D 2.00 12 12 ‐‐ No
8 EXP6D 1.99 12 4 ‐‐ No
9 EXP4A 1.98 12 12 500/1000 Yes
10 EXP6B 1.94 12 4 100/200 Yes
11 EXP5B 1.89 36 4 100/200 Yes
12 EXP4B 1.86 12 12 100/200 Yes
13 BASEB 1.82 80 18 100/200 Yes
14 EXP5C 1.80 36 4 10/100 Yes
15 BASED 1.79 80 18 ‐‐ No
16 EXP3A 1.79 36 12 10/100 Yes
17 EXP3B 1.79 36 12 100/200 Yes
18 EXP3C 1.79 36 12 500/1000 Yes
19 EXP3D 1.79 36 12 ‐‐ No
20 4KM_MMIF 1.78 4 ‐‐ ‐‐ No
21 EXP4C 1.72 12 12 10/100 Yes
22 36KM_MMIF 1.42 36 ‐‐ ‐‐ No
23 80KM_MMIF 1.42 80 ‐‐ ‐‐ No
24 12KM_MMIF 1.28 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ No
• The use of 12 to 36 km resolution MM5 data tends to produce better CALPUFF model
performance than using coarse grid data (e.g., 80 km).
• Regarding the effects of the RMAX1/RMAX2 parameters on CALPUFF/CALMET model
performance, the “A” series (500/1000) is performing best for CTEX3 but the “C” series
(10/100) is performing best for CTEX5 with both CTEX3 and CTEX5 agreeing that the “B”
series (100/200) is the worst performing setting for RMAX1/RMAX2.
‐ This is in contrast to the CALMET surface wind model evaluation that found the EPA‐
FLM Clarification Memorandum recommended settings used in the “B” series of
CALMET experiments produced the wind fields that most closely matched
observations (see Appendices A and B).
‐ However, the CALMET surface wind evaluation was not a valid independent
evaluation since surface wind observations are also used as input to CALMET for
some of the experiments.
97