- 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: Table ES‐6. Summary of model rank
- 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:
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