A framework for evaluating regional-scale numerical photochemical modeling systems

被引:0
作者
Robin Dennis
Tyler Fox
Montse Fuentes
Alice Gilliland
Steven Hanna
Christian Hogrefe
John Irwin
S. Trivikrama Rao
Richard Scheffe
Kenneth Schere
Douw Steyn
Akula Venkatram
机构
[1] US Environmental Protection Agency,Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory
[2] US Environmental Protection Agency,Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
[3] North Carolina State University,Department of Statistics
[4] Hanna Consultants,NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
[5] Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research,Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
[6] John S. Irwin and Associates,Department of Mechanical Engineering
[7] The University of British Columbia,undefined
[8] University of California,undefined
来源
Environmental Fluid Mechanics | 2010年 / 10卷
关键词
Air quality model; Photochemical model; Model evaluation; Performance evaluation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper discusses the need for critically evaluating regional-scale (~200–2,000 km) three-dimensional numerical photochemical air quality modeling systems to establish a model’s credibility in simulating the spatio-temporal features embedded in the observations. Because of limitations of currently used approaches for evaluating regional air quality models, a framework for model evaluation is introduced here for determining the suitability of a modeling system for a given application, distinguishing the performance between different models through confidence-testing of model results, guiding model development and analyzing the impacts of regulatory policy options. The framework identifies operational, diagnostic, dynamic, and probabilistic types of model evaluation. Operational evaluation techniques include statistical and graphical analyses aimed at determining whether model estimates are in agreement with the observations in an overall sense. Diagnostic evaluation focuses on process-oriented analyses to determine whether the individual processes and components of the model system are working correctly, both independently and in combination. Dynamic evaluation assesses the ability of the air quality model to simulate changes in air quality stemming from changes in source emissions and/or meteorology, the principal forces that drive the air quality model. Probabilistic evaluation attempts to assess the confidence that can be placed in model predictions using techniques such as ensemble modeling and Bayesian model averaging. The advantages of these types of model evaluation approaches are discussed in this paper.
引用
收藏
页码:471 / 489
页数:18
相关论文
共 158 条
[21]  
Swall JL(2005)Evaluation of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: sensitivities impacting model performance; part II—particulate matter J Air Waste Manag Assoc 55 1694-4264
[22]  
Foley KM(2001)Assessment of the wintertime performance of developmental particulate matter forecasts with the Eta-community multiscale air quality modeling system J Geophys Res 106 7183-136
[23]  
Chang JC(2007)Preliminary evaluation of the community multiscale air quality model for 2002 over the southeastern United States Atmos Environ 41 173-1887
[24]  
Hanna SR(1998)Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram Atmos Environ 32 4245-5123
[25]  
Rao ST(2001)Evaluation and intercomparison of ozone and PM10 simulations by several chemistry transport models over four European cities within the CityDelta project J Appl Meteorol 40 117-100
[26]  
Zurbenko IG(2008)Validation of the Lagrangian particle dispersion model FLEXPART against large-scale tracer experiment data J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47 1868-6748
[27]  
Neagu R(2008)Uncertainties in episodic ozone modeling stemming from uncertainties in the meteorological fields Atmos Environ 42 5110-6121
[28]  
Porter PS(2008)The impact of nudging in the meteorological model for retrospective air quality simulations. Part II: Evaluating collocated meteorological and air quality observations Atmos Environ 42 87-2259
[29]  
Ku JY(2005)Dynamic evaluation of regional air quality models: assessing changes in O Environ Sci Technol 39 6739-1583
[30]  
Henry RF(2006) stemming from changes in emissions and meteorology Atmos Environ 40 6112-6499