20.04.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure A‐1 compares <strong>the</strong> MM5 model estimated wind fields. Figures A‐2 <strong>and</strong> A‐3 display <strong>the</strong><br />

temperature <strong>and</strong> humidity model performance for <strong>the</strong> MM5 simulations. As shown in Figure A‐<br />

2, <strong>the</strong> temperature performance for <strong>the</strong> three MM5 sensitivity tests using <strong>the</strong> MRF PBL scheme<br />

(2A, 2B <strong>and</strong> 2C) is extremely poor using ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> 36 or 12 km grid resolution having an<br />

underestimation bias greater than ‐4 degrees that does not meet <strong>the</strong> temperature bias<br />

performance goal (≤±0.5 degrees).<br />

The wind speed <strong>and</strong>, especially, <strong>the</strong> wind direction performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> MM5 simulations with<br />

no FDDA (1A, 2A <strong>and</strong> 2F) is noticeably worse than when FDDA is used with <strong>the</strong> wind direction<br />

bias <strong>and</strong> error exceeding <strong>the</strong> performance benchmarks when no FDDA is used. With <strong>the</strong><br />

exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EXP2H temperature underestimation tendency that barely exceeds <strong>the</strong><br />

performance benchmark, <strong>the</strong> MM5 EXP1C <strong>and</strong> EXP2H MM5 sensitivity tests that were used in<br />

<strong>the</strong> CALMET sensitivity tests achieve <strong>the</strong> model performance benchmarks for wind speed, wind<br />

direction, temperature <strong>and</strong> humidity.<br />

Tables A‐4 <strong>and</strong> A‐5 show CALMET estimated winds compared to observations. The “A” series <strong>of</strong><br />

CALMET sensitivity tests (RMAX1/RMAX2 =500/1000) tends to have a wind speed<br />

underestimation bias compared to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r RMAX1/RMAX2 settings for most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> base<br />

CALMET settings (Figure A‐1). The “A” <strong>and</strong> “B” series <strong>of</strong> CALMET runs tend to have <strong>the</strong> winds<br />

that closest match observations compared to <strong>the</strong> “C” (RMAX1/RMAX2 = 10/100) <strong>and</strong> “D” (no<br />

observations) series <strong>of</strong> CALMET runs. The use <strong>of</strong> 12 km CALMET grid resolution appears to<br />

improve <strong>the</strong> CALMET model performance slightly compared to 80 <strong>and</strong> 36 km. The CALMET runs<br />

using <strong>the</strong> MM5 EXP2H 36/12 km data appear to perform better than <strong>the</strong> ones that used <strong>the</strong><br />

MM5 EXP1C 80 km data. CALMET tends to slow down <strong>the</strong> MM5 wind speeds with <strong>the</strong><br />

slowdown increasing going from <strong>the</strong> “D” to “C” to “B” to “A” series <strong>of</strong> CALMET configurations<br />

such that <strong>the</strong> “A” series has a significant wind speed underestimation tendency.<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!