1 / 8

Comments from Austria D. Oettl, A. Kaiser et al.

This study compares the performance of two air quality models - ALADIN-CAMx and GRAMM-GRAL - in Austria, focusing on O3, NO2, and PM10 concentrations at specific monitoring stations. The evaluation includes an analysis of model quality objectives (MQO) and highlights challenges such as the lack of accurate hourly emission profiles. The DELTA tool is found to be valuable in the assessment process, with proposed MQO standards stricter than current regulations. Recommendations are made for clearer guidelines on model evaluation and the interpretation of model results in relation to air quality directives.

ramla
Download Presentation

Comments from Austria D. Oettl, A. Kaiser et al.

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. Comments from Austria D. Oettl, A. Kaiser et al.

  2. Two models used AQA Austria (ALADIN – CAMx) – 10km resol. GRAMM-GRAL (Eulerian-Lagrangian approach) Comparison of previous and proposed MQO at some stations for O3, NO2 and PM10

  3. CAMx-ALADIN at Hohe-Warte station

  4. GRAMM - GRAL • RDE fulfilled but not MQO (problem of emission hourly temporal profile)

  5. Conclusions DELTA tool proves to be very useful in the evaluation process Proposed MQO stricter than current AQD ones Main issue: correlation. Possible reason for non fulfillment is the lack of accurate hourly emission profiles. MQO tend to be fulfilled with longer time averages

  6. Comment 1 COST Action 732 demands that “as most of the non-CFD models have a very simple parameterization of the flow (…), evaluation is best done via quantile-quantile plots or a comparison of centerline concentrations and plume width” (Schatzmann et al., 2010). Geometric mean, geometric variance, fractional bias and the normalized mean square error are also well established metrics for comparisons of observations and model results on an hourly basis

  7. Comment 2 PM10exceedance days can be derived from time-series computations. Another approach is via an empirical relationship between observed annual mean PM10 concentrations and observed exceedancedays We recommend including a statement in the revised AQD, that in such cases model results are acceptable, when they fulfill the MQO defined for annual average PM10 concentrations.

  8. Comment 3: We urgently suggest a clear definition for the application of the DELTA tool. It should clearly be pointed out that the DELTA tool as a whole is not appropriate to evaluate air pollution models on an hourly basis, except the quantile-quantile plot. The FAIRMODE community should be aware that stricter MQO contradict the support for increased use of air pollution models as intended by FAIRMODE.

More Related