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 ...
Figure C‐ ‐6. Global model m perforrmance statistics for ninne HYSPLIT INITD sensitivity tests foor CAPTEX RRelease 5. The final panel in Fig gure C‐6 (botttom right) ddisplays the overall RANK statistic. TThe RANK statistics orders the model m perfoormance of tthe HYSPLIT INITD configgurations aree as follows: : 1. INNITD4 (1.82) ) 2. INNITD104 (1.8 80) 3. INNITD3 (1.79) ) 4. INNITD130 (1.7 78) 5. INNITD140 (1.7 76) 6. INNITD0 (1.75) ) 7. INNITD103 (1.6 68) 8. INNITD1 (0.94) ) 9. INNITD2 (0.88) ) 8
C.3 CAMX SENSITIVITY TESTS Following the general design of the study for the ETEX tracer database, CAMx sensitivity tests described in Section 6.4.3, thirty‐two CAMx sensitivity tests were conducted to investigate the effects of vertical diffusion, horizontal advection solvers and use of the sub‐grid scale Plume‐in‐ Grid (PiG) module on the model performance for the CAPTEX tracer experiment releases 3 and 5. In addition to the sixteen sensitivities conducted for ETEX, a similar set of sensitivity analyses were conducted using the newer ACM2 vertical diffusion scheme (Pleim, 2007; ENVIRON, 2010) introduced into CAMx as of Version 5.20 as an alternative to the more traditional fully K‐theory vertical diffusion schemes that were the only options available in previous versions of CAMx. C.3.1 SPATIAL PERFORMANCE FOR CTEX3 NOPIG EXPERIMENTS Figure C‐7 displays the CAMx spatial model performance statistics for the sensitivity tests that were run without using the PiG subgrid‐scale puff module. For the FMS statistic, the ACM2, TKE, and CMAQ Kz exhibit very similar performance (40.9%, 40.9%, and 39.4% respectively). OB70 exhibits the poorest performance with 33.5% for FMS. For the FAR statistic, ACM2/Bott has the best score (55.6%) followed by TKE/PPM and ACM2/PPM (tied at 58.5%). Overall ACM2 is the best performing vertical diffusion formulation and PPM performs better than BOTT for horizontal advection using the FAR statistic. For the POD and TS spatial statistics, the CMAQ, TKE, and ACM2 vertical diffusion algorithms perform similarly, and all are substantially better than the OB70 approach (15% lower than other vertical diffusion schemes). ACM2/BOTT has the best TS score with 28.6% followed by ACM2/PPM and TKE/PPM (tied at 28.33%). CMAQ/PPM exhibits the best POD score with 52.8% followed by CMAQ/BOTT, ACM2/PPM, and TKE/PPM (tied at 47.2%). Consistent with the ETEX spatial results, there are much smaller differences in the model performance using the two advection solvers for the POD and TS statistics compared to differences between Kz options. In summary, based on the spatial statistics, the ACM2, CMAQ, and TKE Kz algorithms appear to be performing similarly, with the older OB70 option exhibiting much poorer overall performance. The differences in vertical diffusion algorithms have a greater effect on CAMx model performance than the differences in horizontal advection solvers. 9
- 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 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: Figure C‐ ‐5. Global model m pe
- 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 223 and 224: Figure C‐ ‐15. Global model per
- Page 225 and 226: Figure C‐ ‐17. Global model per
- 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
Figure C‐ ‐6. Global model m perforrmance<br />
statistics<br />
for ninne<br />
HYSPLIT INITD<br />
sensitivity<br />
tests foor<br />
CAPTEX RRelease<br />
5.<br />
The final panel in Fig gure C‐6 (botttom<br />
right) ddisplays<br />
<strong>the</strong> overall RANK<br />
statistic. TThe<br />
RANK<br />
statistics orders <strong>the</strong> model m perfoormance<br />
<strong>of</strong> t<strong>the</strong><br />
HYSPLIT INITD configgurations<br />
aree<br />
as follows: :<br />
1. INNITD4<br />
(1.82) )<br />
2. INNITD104<br />
(1.8 80)<br />
3. INNITD3<br />
(1.79) )<br />
4. INNITD130<br />
(1.7 78)<br />
5. INNITD140<br />
(1.7 76)<br />
6. INNITD0<br />
(1.75) )<br />
7. INNITD103<br />
(1.6 68)<br />
8. INNITD1<br />
(0.94) )<br />
9. INNITD2<br />
(0.88) )<br />
8
Change language