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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Air Quality Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 27. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/reports/Draft_IWAQM_Reassessment_05270 9.pdf). EPA. 2009b. Clarification on EPA‐FLM Recommended Settings for CALMET. Memorandum from Tyler J. Fox, Group Leader, Air Quality Modeling Group, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Regional Modeling Contacts. August 31. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/CALMET%20CLARIFICATION.pdf). EPA. 2009c. AERMOD Implementation Guide. AERMOD Implementation Workgroup, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division. Last Revised March 19, 2009. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermod_implmtn_guide_19March20 09.pdf). Ferber G.J., K. Telegadas, J.L. Heffter, C.R. Dickson, R.N. Dietz and P.W. Krey. 1981. Demonstration of a Long‐Range Atmospheric Tracer System using Perfluorocarbons ‐ Final Report. EPA‐600/7‐81‐006, U.S EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., January, 55 p. Ferber G.J., J.L. Heffter, R.R. Draxler, R.J. Lagomarsino, F.L. Thomas, R.N. Dietz, and C.M. Benkovitz. 1986. Cross‐Appalachian tracer experiment (CAPTEX‐83). Final Report. NOAA Tech. Memo ERL ARL‐142, Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, 60 p. Fox, D. 1981. Judging Air Quality Model Performance. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 62, 599‐609. Graziani, G., W. Klug, and S. Mosca. 1998. Real‐Time Long‐Range Dispersion Model Evaluation of the ETEX First Release, EUR 17754 EN. ISBN 92‐828‐3657‐6. Grell, G.A., J. Dudhia, and D.R. Stauffer. 1995. A Description of the Fifth‐Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5), NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN‐398+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 117 pp. (http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/documents/mm5‐desc‐pdf). Heffter, J.L., J.F. Schubert and G.A. Meade. 1984. Atlantic Coast Unique Regional Atmospheric Tracer Experiment. ACCURATE. NOAA Tech Memo ERL ARL‐130. Irwin, J. 1997. A Comparison of CALPUFF Modeling Results with 1977 INEL Field Data Results. Presented at 22 nd NATO/CCMS International technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and its Application. Clermont‐Ferrand, France. June 2‐6, 1997. Iwasaki, T., T. Maki, and K. Katayama. 1998: Tracer Transport Model at Japan Meteorological Agency and Its Application to the ETEX Data. Atmos. Environ., 32, 4285 – 4295. Kain, J.S.. 2004. The Kain‐Fritsch convective parameterization: An update. J. App. Meteor., 43, 170‐181. 36 Kang, D., R. Mathur, K. Schere, S. Yu, and B. Eder. 2007. New Categorical Metrics for Air Quality Model Evaluation. J. App. Meteor., 46, 549‐555. McNally, D. 2010. MMIFstat Evaluation Tool. Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Arvada, Colorado. 145
Mlawer, E.J., S.J. Taubman, P.D. Brown, M.J. Iacono, and S.A. Clough. 1997. Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmosphere: RRTM, a validated correlated‐k model for the long‐ wave. J. Geophys. Res., 102 (D14), 16663‐16682. Mosca, S., G. Graziani, W. Klug, R. Ballasio, and R. Bianconi. 1998. A Statistical Methodology for the Evaluation of Long‐Range Dispersion Models: An Application to the ETEX Exercise. Atmos. Environ., 32, 4307‐ 4324. National Center for Atmospheric Research, cited 2008: NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis – Data Product Description. (http://dss.ucar.edu/pub/reanalysis/prod_des.html). Nasstrom, J.S., and J.C. Pace. 1998. Evaluation of the Effect of Meteorological Data Resolution on Lagrangian Particle Dispersion Simulations Using the ETEX Experiment. Atmos. Environ., 32, 4187‐4194. Policastro, A.J., M. Wastag, L. Coke, R.A. Carhart and W.E. Dunn. 1986. Evaluation of Short‐ Term Long‐Range Transport Models – Volume I. Analysis Procedures and Results. Argonne National Laboratory. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards. EPA‐450/4‐86‐016a. October. Scire, J.S., R. Yamartino, G.R. Carmichael, Y.S. Chang. 1989. CALGRID: A Mesoscale Photochemical Grid Model. Tech. Rep., Sigma Research Corporation, Concord, MA, 222 pp. (http://gate1.baaqmd.gov/pdf/2516_CALGRID_Mesoscale_Photochemical_Grid_Model _Volume_II_Users_Guide_Part1_1989.pdf) Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamartino. 2000a. A User’s Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5). Tech. Rep., Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA 332 pp. (http://www.src.com/calpuff/download/CALMET_UsersGuide.pdf). Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino. 2000b. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5), Tech. Rep., Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA, 521 pp. (http://www.src.com/calpuff/download/CALPUFF_UsersGuide.pdf). Seaman, N.L. 2000. Meteorological modeling for air quality assessments. Atmos. Environ., Vol. 34, No. 12‐14, 2231‐2260. Seaman, N.L., D.R. Stauffer, and L.M. Lario. 1995. A multiscale four‐dimensional data assimilation system applied to the San Joaquin Valley during SARMAP. Part I: Modeling design and basic performance characteristics. J. Appl. Meteo., Vol. 34, pp. 1739‐1761. Skamarock, W.C., J.B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, D.O. Gill, D.M. Barker, M.G. Duda, X. Huang, W. Wang, and J.G. Powers. 2008. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3, NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN‐475+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 125 pp. (http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/docs/arw_v3.pdf). Slade, D.H. 1968. Meteorology and Atomic Energy. Air Resources Laboratories, Research Laboratories, Environmental Sciences Services Administration, United States Department of Commerce. For the Division of Reactor Development and technology, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services. Silver Spring, Maryland (TID‐24190). July. Stauffer, D.R., and N.L. Seaman. 1990. Use of four‐dimensional data assimilation in a limited‐ area mesoscale model. Part I: Experiments with synoptic‐scale data. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 1250 – 1277. 146
Page 1 and 2:
Documentation of the Evaluation of
Page 3 and 4:
FOREWARD This report documents the
Page 5 and 6:
2.4.3 ATMES‐II Model Evaluation A
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ABSTRACT The CALP
Page 9 and 10:
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH Up to six LRT
Page 11 and 12:
CALPUFF performance is evaluated by
Page 13 and 14:
Table ES‐2. ATMES‐II spatial an
Page 15 and 16:
• CALPUFF tended to overstate the
Page 17 and 18:
• The best performing CALPUFF con
Page 19 and 20:
2009a). The key findings from the C
Page 21 and 22:
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Page 23 and 24:
2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 EXP4A EXP4B
Page 25 and 26:
Figure ESS‐4. RANK statistical pe
Page 27 and 28:
Evaluatioon of Six LRT T Dispersion
Page 29 and 30:
Table ES‐6. Summary of model rank
Page 31 and 32:
eproduce the northwest to southeast
Page 33 and 34:
ETEX LRT Dispersion Model Sensitivi
Page 35 and 36:
CONCLUSIONS OF LRT DISPERSION MODEL
Page 37 and 38:
The CAMx and CALGRID Eulerian photo
Page 39 and 40:
July 1980. Both experiments examine
Page 41 and 42:
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT Chapter
Page 43 and 44:
puffs expand until they exceed the
Page 45 and 46:
that performance evaluation be base
Page 47 and 48:
The ETEX real‐time LRT modeling p
Page 49 and 50:
The ETEX study has formulated the f
Page 51 and 52:
In this study we expand the LRT mod
Page 53 and 54:
AM ∩ AP FMS = × 100% (2‐2) A
Page 55 and 56:
Factor of α (FAα): FAα represent
Page 57 and 58:
3.0 1980 GREAT PLAINS FIELD STUDY 3
Page 59 and 60:
compact discs, which were used to o
Page 61 and 62:
ILEVZI = 1 Layer of winds to use in
Page 63 and 64:
MCHEM = 0 No chemical transformatio
Page 65 and 66:
Table 3‐6. CALPUFF/CALMET experim
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3‐11. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitiv
Page 69 and 70:
evaluation studies and evaluate whe
Page 71 and 72:
Tables 3‐13 and Figures 3‐2 thr
Page 73 and 74:
140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Page 75 and 76:
30% 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30%
Page 77 and 78:
120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20%
Page 79 and 80:
20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐
Page 81 and 82:
The fitted Gaussian plume statistic
Page 83 and 84:
0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐40% ‐5
Page 85 and 86:
300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 300
Page 87 and 88:
60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% ‐60%
Page 89 and 90:
with APS, implementing the slug opt
Page 91 and 92:
the amount of time that the tracer
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 4‐1. CALPUFF/CALMET UTM mo
Page 95 and 96:
compact discs, which were used to o
Page 97 and 98:
Table 4‐4. CALPUFF parameters use
Page 99 and 100:
Table 4‐8. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitivi
Page 101 and 102:
the fitted Gaussian plume is not a
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 4‐2. Comparison of predict
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 5‐1. Location of Dayton an
Page 107 and 108:
MM5 runs, the first without FDDA (i
Page 109 and 110:
Table 5‐3. MM5 sensitivity tests
Page 111 and 112:
Table 5‐6. Definition of the CALM
Page 113 and 114:
performance at the monitor location
Page 115 and 116:
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 35% 3
Page 117 and 118:
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% F
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 and 170: Table 6‐3. Summary of CALPUFF puf
Page 171 and 172: 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.
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: EPA, 1984: Interim Procedures for E
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
Page 221 and 222: Figure C‐ ‐13. Spatial model pe
Page 227 and 228: Table C‐3. CAMx FMS and POD spati
Page 229 and 230: Figure C‐ ‐20. False Alarm Rate
Page 231 and 232: Figure C‐ ‐23. Factor of o Exce
Page 233 and 234:
The PCC values for th he six LRT mo
Page 235 and 236:
The RANK statistical performancce m
Page 237 and 238:
Table C‐55. Summary y of model r
Page 239 and 240:
Results foor the TS me etric are pr
Page 241 and 242:
Figure C‐ ‐35. Factor of o 2 (F
Page 243 and 244:
a negativve FB. The best b performm
Page 245 and 246:
performing model the most often sco
Page 247:
United States Environmental Protect
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?