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‐ ‐27. Fraction nal Bias(FB) statistical pperformancee metric for the six LRT models and CAPTEX RRelease 3. The KS paarameters fo or the six LRRT models are shown in FFigure C‐28. HYSPLIT (31%) has the best KS parammeter, which h indicates thhe best matcch between the predicteed and observed tracer concentrration distrib butions, folloowed by CAMMx (38%) annd then SCIPUFF (43%). FLEXPART and CALGRIDD are essentia ally tied withh the worst KS parameteer with a vallue of 58%. Figure C‐ ‐28. Kolmog gorov – Smirrnov Parameeter (KSP) sttatistical performance mmetrics for tthe six LRT mmodels for CA APTEX Releaase 3. 30
The RANK statistical performancce metric wa performaance metric that equallyy ranks the c (PCC or RR), bias (FB), spatial analysis (FMS) a RANK meetrics ranges s from 0.0 too 4.0 with a p lists the RRANK model performance statistics model ussing the RAN NK metric with a value of of modell performanc ce (correlation, bias, spa performing model ac ccording to tthe RANK me scores reelatively well across all oof the four m distributiion and corr relation metrics compare FLEXPART and CALPU UFF are nearrly even in te and 1.43 respectively y. FLEXPARTT scores bett the reverrse is true fo or the correlaation (R 2 s proposed by Draxler (22001) as a siingle model ombination of performaance metricss for correlattion nd unpairedd distributionn comparisoons (KS). Thee perfect moddel receiving a score of 44.0. Figure CC‐29 for the six LLRT models. CAMx is thee highest rannked f 1.91. Notee that CAMx scores high in all four areas atial and cummulative disttribution). TThe next besst etric is SCIPUUFF with a score of 1.711. SCIPUFF metrics, with slightly loweer scores in cumulative ed to CAMx, , contributinng to its secoond rank. erms of their performannce with RANNK values of 1.44 ter than CALLPUFF with tthe bias (FB) metric, wheereas ) metric. Figure C‐ ‐29. RANK statistical s peerformance metric for thhe six LRT mmodels and CCAPTEX Releease 3. 31
- 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: 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: The PCC values for th he six LRT mo
- 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‐ ‐27. Fraction nal Bias(FB) statistical pperformancee<br />
metric for <strong>the</strong> six LRT models <strong>and</strong><br />
CAPTEX RRelease<br />
3.<br />
The KS paarameters<br />
fo or <strong>the</strong> six LRRT<br />
models are<br />
shown in FFigure<br />
C‐28. HYSPLIT (31%)<br />
has <strong>the</strong> best<br />
KS parammeter,<br />
which h indicates thhe<br />
best matcch<br />
between <strong>the</strong> predicteed<br />
<strong>and</strong> observed<br />
tracer<br />
concentrration<br />
distrib butions, folloowed<br />
by CAMMx<br />
(38%) annd<br />
<strong>the</strong>n SCIPUFF<br />
(43%). FLEXPART <strong>and</strong><br />
CALGRIDD<br />
are essentia ally tied withh<br />
<strong>the</strong> worst KS parameteer<br />
with a vallue<br />
<strong>of</strong> 58%.<br />
Figure C‐ ‐28. Kolmog gorov – Smirrnov<br />
Parameeter<br />
(KSP) sttatistical<br />
performance<br />
mmetrics<br />
for t<strong>the</strong><br />
six LRT mmodels<br />
for CA APTEX Releaase<br />
3.<br />
30
Change language