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

Figure 6‐23 displays the global statistics for the HYSPLIT sensitivity tests with Figures 6‐23a and
6‐23b containing the statistical metrics where the best performing model has the, respectively,
lowest and highest score. For the FOEX metrics, the INITD3 scores the best with a 3.4% FOEX
score followed by INITD4 (‐7%), INITD104 (‐8.6%), and finally INITD103 (‐9.5%). INITD2 scored
worst with a ‐28.9%. INITD0, 1, 130, and 140 performed nearly as poorly with scores ranging
between ‐21.9% to ‐24%. Using the NMSE statistical performance metric, the best performing
configuration was INITD130, 140, and 3 with values of 17, 18, 19 pg m ‐3 respectively. The
model configurations with the highest predicted error were INITD1 and INITD2 with values of
approximately 325 and 333 pg m ‐3 . For the KS parameter, the four puff‐particle model
configuration options (INITD3,4,103,104) again showed the best scores.
For the within a factor of 2 and 5 metric (FA2 and FA5, Figure 6‐23b, top), the hybrid puff‐
particle configurations INITD3 and INITD4 and their counterpart particle‐puff configurations
INITD103 and INITD104 are clearly performing better than pure particle (INITD0) or puff
(INITD1 and INITD2) configurations. For the PCC metric, INITD140 had the highest (0.69)
followed by INITD104 (0.64) and INITD0 and 103 (0.63). Interestingly, it appears that the higher
PCC score for INITD103 is the main reason for the highest overall model RANK as both INITD3
and 103 had nearly identical spatial performance while INITD3 had slightly better KS scores.
137