Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ... Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
The global model statistics for the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests are shown in Figure 6‐ 20, with Figures 6‐21a and 6‐21b displays statistics where the best performing model configuration has the lowest and highest score, respectively. The puff splitting sensitivity tests have a very small effect on the CALPUFF model performance. Again, the biggest effect on CALPUFF performance of all the puff splitting parameters comes from changing ROLD from 0.25 to 0.50, which appears to slightly degrade most CALPUFF model performance metrics with the exception of bias and error that are improved. Again, in terms of the CALPUFF global model performance versus other four LRT dispersion models (Figures 6‐9 through 6‐15), the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests are exhibiting by far the worst model performance. For example, the RANK model performance statistic varies from 0.6 to 0.7 across the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests as compared to much higher values for CAMx (1.9), SCIPUFF (1.8), HYPLIT (1.8) and FLEXPART (1.0). ‐28% ‐32% ‐36% ‐40% 1.5 1.49 1.48 1.47 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.4 NOSPLIT NOSPLIT Factor of Exceedance (FOEX) (Perfect = 0%) DEFAULT DEFAULT ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT Fractional Bias (FB) (Perfect = 0) ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT ROLD ROLD SYS SYS SYSROLD SYSROLD Figure 6‐21a. Global model performance statistics for the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests. 133 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 NOSPLIT NOSPLIT Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE) (Perfect = 0) DEFAULT ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT ROLD SYS Kolmogorov‐Smirnov Parameter (KSP) (Perfect = 0%) DEFAULT ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT ROLD SYS SYSROLD SYSROLD
0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% NOSPLIT NOSPLIT DEFAULT Factor of 2 (FA2) (Perfect = 100%) ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT ROLD SYS Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) (Perfect = 1) DEFAULT ALLHRS CNSMIN ZISPLIT ROLD SYS SYSROLD SYSROLD Figure 6‐21b. Global model performance statistics for the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests. In conclusion, the CALPUFF puff splitting sensitivity tests did not have any significant effect on CALPUFF model performance. Whether puff splitting was used or not produced essentially identical model performance for the ETEX experiment and certainly did not improve the CALPUFF model performance. 6.4.5 HYSPLIT Sensitivity Tests HYSPLIT is unique among the models analyzed in this project in that its configuration is highly flexible, allowing for treatment of atmospheric dispersion purely as a Lagrangian particle model (default configuration), puff‐particle hybrid model, or purely as a puff model. Nine sensitivity analyses were conducted against the ETEX database to provide information about the various configurations of HYSPLIT, but more importantly to provide additional information regarding the two distinct classes (puff and particle) of Lagrangian models evaluated as part of this project. Model configuration (puff, particle, puff‐particle hybrid) are governed through the HYSPLIT parameter INITD. A description of the INITD variable options is provided in Table 6‐4. 134 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% NOSPLIT 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.6 0.58 0.56 NOSPLIT DEFAULT DEFAULT Factor of 5 (FA5) (Perfect = 100%) ALLHRS ALLHRS CNSMIN Rank (RANK) (Perfect = 4) CNSMIN ZISPLIT ZISPLIT ROLD ROLD SYS SYS SYSROLD SYSROLD
- Page 119 and 120: 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% E
- Page 121 and 122: 5.4.1.4 Comparison of CALPUFF CTEX3
- Page 123 and 124: 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.12 0 ‐0.12 16% 1
- Page 125 and 126: CTEX3 discussed in Section 5.4.1. A
- Page 127 and 128: CALPUFF sensitivity simulations are
- Page 129 and 130: 14. Across all the spatial statisti
- Page 131 and 132: sensitivity tests. The “B” seri
- Page 133 and 134: ‐0.1 ‐0.2 0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
- Page 135 and 136: 6.0 1994 EUROPEAN TRACER EXPERIMENT
- Page 137 and 138: Figure 6‐2a. Surface synoptic met
- Page 139 and 140: Figure 6‐3a. Distribution of the
- Page 141 and 142: 36 kilometers and the vertical stru
- Page 143 and 144: splitting flag near sunset (hour 17
- Page 145 and 146: experienced during the original ETE
- Page 147 and 148: 2 1 0 ‐1 ‐2 3 2 1 0 23‐Oct 23
- Page 149 and 150: 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figu
- Page 151 and 152: Figure 6‐9. Factor of Exceedance
- Page 153 and 154: eceiving a 0.0 score. Figure 6‐13
- Page 155 and 156: Table 6‐1. Summary of model ranki
- Page 157 and 158: plume spread and observed surface c
- Page 159 and 160: Figure 6‐16c. Comparison of spati
- Page 161 and 162: • NoPiG: The tracer emissions wer
- Page 163 and 164: Using the NMSE statistical performa
- Page 165 and 166: 6.4.3.2 Effect of PiG on Model Perf
- Page 167 and 168: 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
- Page 169: Table 6‐3. Summary of CALPUFF puf
- Page 173 and 174: Figure 6‐ ‐22 displays the t sp
- Page 175 and 176: Figure 6‐ ‐23a. Global model pe
- Page 177 and 178: Figure 6‐24. Figure of Merit (FMS
- Page 179 and 180: 7.0 REFERENCES Anderson, B. 2008. T
- Page 181 and 182: EPA, 1984: Interim Procedures for E
- Page 183 and 184: Mlawer, E.J., S.J. Taubman, P.D. Br
- Page 185 and 186: 148 Appendix A Evaluation of the MM
- Page 187 and 188: Table A‐1. Wind speed and wind di
- Page 189 and 190: Table A‐3. Definition of the CTEX
- Page 191 and 192: Figure A‐ ‐1. Wind speed bias (
- Page 193 and 194: Figure A‐ ‐3. Humidity bias and
- Page 195 and 196: Table A‐5. Comparison of CTEX5 MM
- Page 197 and 198: B.1 CALMET MODEL EVALUATION TO IDEN
- Page 199 and 200: Figure B‐ ‐1 displays th he win
- Page 201 and 202: Table B‐2a. Summary wind speed mo
- Page 203 and 204: B.2 CONCLUSIONS OF CTEX3 CALMET SEN
- Page 205 and 206: C.1 INTRODUCTION In this section, t
- Page 207 and 208: C.2.2 HYYSPLIT GLOB BAL STATISTIICS
- Page 209 and 210: The final panel in Figure C‐3 (bo
- Page 211 and 212: Figure C‐ ‐5. Global model m pe
- Page 213 and 214: C.3 CAMX SENSITIVITY TESTS Followin
- Page 215 and 216: ACM2 Kzz combinatio ons rank as the
- Page 217 and 218: Figure C‐ ‐10. Spatial model pe
- Page 219 and 220: Figure C‐ ‐12. Global model per
The global model statistics for <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> puff splitting sensitivity tests are shown in Figure 6‐<br />
20, with Figures 6‐21a <strong>and</strong> 6‐21b displays statistics where <strong>the</strong> best performing model<br />
configuration has <strong>the</strong> lowest <strong>and</strong> highest score, respectively. The puff splitting sensitivity tests<br />
have a very small effect on <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> model performance. Again, <strong>the</strong> biggest effect on<br />
<strong>CALPUFF</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> puff splitting parameters comes from changing ROLD from 0.25<br />
to 0.50, which appears to slightly degrade most <strong>CALPUFF</strong> model performance metrics with <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> bias <strong>and</strong> error that are improved. Again, in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> global model<br />
performance versus o<strong>the</strong>r four LRT dispersion models (Figures 6‐9 through 6‐15), <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong><br />
puff splitting sensitivity tests are exhibiting by far <strong>the</strong> worst model performance. For example,<br />
<strong>the</strong> RANK model performance statistic varies from 0.6 to 0.7 across <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> puff splitting<br />
sensitivity tests as compared to much higher values for CAMx (1.9), SCIPUFF (1.8), HYPLIT (1.8)<br />
<strong>and</strong> FLEXPART (1.0).<br />
‐28%<br />
‐32%<br />
‐36%<br />
‐40%<br />
1.5<br />
1.49<br />
1.48<br />
1.47<br />
1.46<br />
1.45<br />
1.44<br />
1.43<br />
1.42<br />
1.41<br />
1.4<br />
NOSPLIT<br />
NOSPLIT<br />
Factor <strong>of</strong> Exceedance (FOEX)<br />
(Perfect = 0%)<br />
DEFAULT<br />
DEFAULT<br />
ALLHRS<br />
CNSMIN<br />
ZISPLIT<br />
Fractional Bias (FB)<br />
(Perfect = 0)<br />
ALLHRS<br />
CNSMIN<br />
ZISPLIT<br />
ROLD<br />
ROLD<br />
SYS<br />
SYS<br />
SYSROLD<br />
SYSROLD<br />
Figure 6‐21a. Global model performance statistics for <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> puff splitting sensitivity<br />
tests.<br />
133<br />
340<br />
330<br />
320<br />
310<br />
300<br />
290<br />
280<br />
270<br />
82<br />
80<br />
78<br />
76<br />
74<br />
72<br />
70<br />
NOSPLIT<br />
NOSPLIT<br />
Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE)<br />
(Perfect = 0)<br />
DEFAULT<br />
ALLHRS<br />
CNSMIN<br />
ZISPLIT<br />
ROLD<br />
SYS<br />
Kolmogorov‐Smirnov Parameter (KSP)<br />
(Perfect = 0%)<br />
DEFAULT<br />
ALLHRS<br />
CNSMIN<br />
ZISPLIT<br />
ROLD<br />
SYS<br />
SYSROLD<br />
SYSROLD
Change language