1 / 26

Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency

This report presents a comprehensive comparison of various photochemical modeling systems, including MRPO, VISTAS, and MANE-VU, against IMPROVE measurements during different periods in 1999 and 2002. It evaluates how well these models perform compared to observed data from the Pittsburgh Super Site. While the models show reasonable agreement with measurements on approximately 70% of days, significant variances are noted on others. The findings highlight the need for further analysis of model responses to emission changes across different geographical locations.

hanh
Télécharger la présentation

Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium - MRPO National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26, 2004

  2. Outline • Comparison of Model Results to IMPROVE Measurements (24-hour average) • MRPO, VISTAS, and MANE-VU • July 13–27, 1999 and January 1-19, 2002 • SHEN, MACA, and UPBU • Comparison of Model Results to Pittsburgh Super Site Measurements (Hourly) • MRPO and VISTAS • July 13–27, 1999

  3. Summary of Modeling Systems

  4. Comparison of Model Results to IMPROVE Measurements

  5. IMPROVE vs. Models

  6. IMPROVE vs. Models

  7. IMPROVE vs. Models

  8. IMPROVE vs. Models

  9. IMPROVE vs. Models

  10. IMPROVE vs. Models

  11. Comparison of Model Results to Pittsburgh Super Site Measurements

  12. Pittsburgh Super Site – July 2001

  13. Summary • Given the preliminary nature and diverse modeling approaches the results seem to agree fairly well • None of the modeling approaches seems to be consistently closer to the observed values; performance varies by day and specie • The three modeling systems compare reasonably well to the IMPROVE measurements on ~ 70% of the days, but can show large discrepancies on the other days. • Hourly model output at the Pittsburgh Super Site are very consistent on a diurnal and synoptic scale • Only one station but the results are encouraging • Need to evaluate the response of the various modeling systems to changes in emissions at specific receptor locations.

More Related