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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sensitivity RANK MM5 CALGRID Met Ranking Test Statistics (km) (km) RMAX1/RMAX2 Obs 1 36KM_MMIF 1.610 36 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 12KM_MMIF 1.430 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 EXP3A 1.400 36 12 500/1000 Yes 4 EXP4A 1.400 12 12 500/1000 Yes 5 EXP5C 1.380 36 4 10/100 Yes 6 EXP6C 1.380 12 4 10/100 Yes 7 EXP1C 1.340 36 18 10/100 Yes 8 EXP5A 1.340 36 4 500/1000 Yes 9 EXP6A 1.340 12 4 500/1000 Yes 10 EXP5D 1.310 36 4 ‐‐ No 11 EXP6D 1.310 12 4 ‐‐ No 12 EXP1B 1.300 36 18 100/200 Yes 13 EXP3D 1.300 36 12 ‐‐ No 14 EXP4D 1.300 12 12 ‐‐ No 15 BASEA 1.290 80 18 500/1000 Yes 16 EXP1D 1.290 36 18 ‐‐ No 17 EXP1A 1.280 36 18 500/1000 Yes 18 EXP3B 1.220 36 12 100/200 Yes 19 EXP5B 1.220 36 4 100/200 Yes 20 EXP4B 1.220 12 12 100/200 Yes 21 EXP6B 1.220 12 4 100/200 Yes 22 BASEC 1.170 80 18 10/100 Yes 23 BASEB 1.160 80 18 100/200 Yes 24 EXP3C 1.120 36 12 10/100 Yes 25 EXP4C 1.120 12 12 10/200 Yes CTEX5 CALPUFF Model Evaluation Figure ES‐3 summarizes the RANK model performance statistics for the CTEX5 CALPUFF sensitivity simulations that used the 12 km MM5 data as input to CALMET and the 12 and 4 km MM5 data as input to MMIF. 16
2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 EXP4A EXP4B EXP4C Rank (RANK) (Perfect = 4) EXP4D EXP6A EXP6B Figure ES‐3. RANK performance statistics for CTEX5 CALPUFF sensitivity tests that used 12 km MM5 as input to CALMET or MMIF. Table ES‐4 ranks the model performance of the CTEX5 CALPUFF sensitivity tests using the RANK composite statistic. The 12, 36 and 80 km CALPUFF/MMIF sensitivity tests have the lowest RANK values in the 1.28 to 1.42 range. Table ES‐4. Final Rankings of CALPUFF CTEX5 Sensitivity Tests using the RANK model performance statistic. Sensitivity RANK MM5 CALGRID Met Ranking Test Statistics (km) (km) RMAX1/RMAX2 Obs 1 EXP6C 2.19 12 4 10/100 Yes 2 EXP5D 2.10 36 4 ‐‐ No 3 BASEA 2.06 80 18 500/1000 Yes 4 BASEC 2.05 80 18 10/100 Yes 5 EXP5A 2.03 36 4 500/1000 Yes 6 EXP6A 2.02 12 4 500/1000 Yes 7 EXP4D 2.00 12 12 ‐‐ No 8 EXP6D 1.99 12 4 ‐‐ No 9 EXP4A 1.98 12 12 500/1000 Yes 10 EXP6B 1.94 12 4 100/200 Yes 11 EXP5B 1.89 36 4 100/200 Yes 12 EXP4B 1.86 12 12 100/200 Yes 13 BASEB 1.82 80 18 100/200 Yes 14 EXP5C 1.80 36 4 10/100 Yes 17 EXP6C EXP6D 4KM_MMIF 12KM_MMIF (1‐KS/100) FMS/100 (1‐FB/2) R^2
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: 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
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 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
Page 221 and 222:
Figure C‐ ‐13. Spatial model pe
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
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?