On joint deterministic grid modeling and sub-grid variability conceptual framework for model evaluation

The general situation (but exemplified in urban areas), where a significant degree of sub-grid variability (SGV) exists in grid models poses problems when comparing grid-based air-quality modeling results with observations. Typically, grid models ignore or parameterize processes and features that are at their sub-grid scale. Also, observations may be obtained in an area where significant spatial variability in the concentration fields exists. Consequently, model results and observations cannot be expected to be equal. To address this issue, we suggest a framework that can provide for qualitative judgments on model performance based on comparing observations to the grid predictions and its SGV distribution. Further, we (a) explore some characteristics of SGV, (b) comment on the contributions to SGV and (c) examine the implications to the modeling results at coarse grid resolution using examples from fine scale grid modeling of the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system.

[1]  A. Russell,et al.  Multiscale modeling of pollutant transport and chemistry , 1991 .

[2]  W. Godwin.  Article in Press , 2000 .

[3]  V. Isakov,et al.  A case study for assessing uncertainty in local-scale regulatory air quality modeling applications , 2003 .

[4]  P. S. Porter,et al.  Interpreting the Information in Ozone Observations and Model Predictions Relevant to Regulatory Policies in the Eastern United States , 2000 .

[5]  Steven E. Peckham,et al.  Online versus offline air quality modeling on cloud‐resolving scales , 2004 .

[6]  J. Herwehe.  Quantifying subgrid pollutant variability in Eulerian air quality models , 2004 .

[7]  A E Gelfand,et al.  On the change of support problem for spatio-temporal data. , 2001, Biostatistics.

[8]  Christian Hogrefe,et al.  Examination of model predictions at different horizontal grid resolutions , 2005 .

[9]  D. Murphy,et al.  Chemical components of single particles measured with Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry (PALMS) during the Atlanta SuperSite Project: Focus on organic/sulfate, lead, soot, and mineral particles , 2002 .

[10]  Harvey E. Jeffries,et al.  Sensitivity of ozone to model grid resolution — II. Detailed process analysis for ozone chemistry , 1995 .

[11]  J 4 . 4 LINKING AIR TOXICS CONCENTRATION FROM CMAQ TO THE HAPEM 5 EXPOSURE MODEL AT NEIGHBORHOOD SCALES FOR THE PHILADELPHIA AREA , 2004 .

[12]  Robin L. Dennis,et al.  NARSTO critical review of photochemical models and modeling , 2000 .

[13]  Kristen Lohman,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of Regional Mercury Impacts on Wildlife , 2000 .

[14]  Nancy J. Brown,et al.  Evaluating Uncertainties in Regional Photochemical Air Quality Modeling , 2003 .

[15]  J. Seinfeld.  RETHINKING THE OZONE PROBLEM IN URBAN AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION , 1991 .

[16]  D. Byun.  Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 community multi-scale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system , 1999 .

[17]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Development and application of a state-of-the-science plume-in-grid model , 2002 .