Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains (SBM) Monitoring Sites

Biocomplexity Project: N-deposition Model Evaluation

UCR, CE-CERT, Air Quality Modeling Group

Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains (SBM)

Monitoring Sites

Gail Tonnesen, Chao-Jung Chien, Zion Wang, Mohammad OmaryCE-CERT, UCR

April 25, 2006



Objectives

• UCR Fire Lab has long term HNO3 data in Western Riverside County that can be used in air quality model evaluations.

• CE-CERT models have been previously evaluated using several ambient data networks but N species data is sparse in Riverside County.

• Goal: Compare CE-CERT model predictions with Fire Lab N data.



SBM monitoring data

• ~11 monitoring stations being evaluated (data from UCR Fire Lab).

• 2-week long sampling periods from April through October in 2002; total of 11 periods.

• Gaseous HNO3 (ug/m3) data.



Air Quality Modeling Results

• Modeling system: CMAQ, MM5, SMOKE.

– Case 1: WRAP 2002 Base C annual run:• Modeling domain: US continent; 36km grid spacing,

148 x 112 grid cells.

– Case 2: Ndep 2002 base annual run:• Modeling domain: State of California; 4km grid

spacing, 144 x 225 grid cells.



Selected Summary Statistical Results

WRAP 36k Ndep 4k

Numer of Data Points 112 112

Fractional Bias (%) 56.52 34.05

Fraction Gross Error (%) 61.11 46.91

Normalized Mean Bias(%) 65.53 41.22

Normalized Mean Error (%) 72.92 53.72

Mean Normalized Bias(%) 106.69 57.59

Mean Normalized Gross Error (%) 110.63 68.14

Observation Max (ug/m3) 10.41 10.41

Prediction Max (ug/m3) 11.86 11.81

Observatin Mean (ug/m3) 4.08 4.08

Prediction Mean (ug/m3) 6.76 5.77

Observation SD (ug/m3) 2.13 2.13

Prediction SD (ug/m3) 1.77 2.72

Coefficient Determination (R2) 0.23 0.43

Allsite Alldays

Statistics

Modeling Case



All Days at Each Site Model to Data Comparisons

All Day One Site, HNO3(g) comparisons

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AO BF BP CP GV HP HV KP MC OS SP

Stations

FB (%)

Ndep4K wrap36k



All Sites and All Days Comparisons36kwrap vs. 4kndep



Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: AO

36kwrap vs. 4kndep Amb. vs. 36kwrap vs. 4kndep



Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: BF




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: BP




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: CP




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: GV




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: HP




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: HV




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: KP




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: MC




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: OS




Time series and scatter plots for all days at site: SP




Spatial Overlay Plots (SBM data shown in diamonds)



Summary

• Model performance is reasonably good compared to other model evaluation studies:– longer term averages of model and data tend to show better

performance than do hourly or daily comparisons.

• Better model performance with 4km grid.• The data has more spatial variability than does the

model, even at the finer 4km grid:– use of finer grid and better land use data might improve the

model spatial resolution.



Conclusions

• The model performs reasonably well, and these model results can be used in future analyses, however, additional effort should be made to improve the accuracy and spatial resolution of the model predictions.

Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains (SBM) Monitoring Sites

Documents

Transcript of Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains (SBM) Monitoring Sites