Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Borrego, C. et al., 2009 Estimation of modelling uncertainty according to the EU air quality
legislation: the Air4EU Berlin case, submitted Atm. Env.
Boylan, J.W., A.G. Russel, 2006. PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and
criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atm.Env. 40, 4947-4957
Carmichael, G.R. et al., 2007 Predicting air quality: current status and future direction. Proc.
29th ITM on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application, Aveiro, Portugal.
Delle Monache, L and R.B. Stull, 2003. A comparison of regional oxidant model output with
observed ozone data. Atm.Env. 37, 3469-3474
Denby, B. et al., 2008. Comparison of two data assimilation methods for assessing PM10
exceedances on the European scale.Accepted for publication Atm.Env.
Grell, G.A. et al., 2005 Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the WRF model. Atm.Env. 39
(37), 6957-6975
Hanna, S.R., G.E. Moore, M.E. Frenau, 1996 Evaulation of photochemical grid models using
data from the Lake Michigan Ozone Study. Atm. Env. 30, 9, 3265-3279
Hass, H. et al., 1997 Comparison of model results obtained with several European regional air
quality models. Atm.Env. 31, 19, 3259-3279
Hass, H. et al., 2003 Results and intercomparison from the European regional scale modelling
systems-Aerosol modelling, EUROTRAC-ISS Rep.
Loon, M. van et al., 2004 Model intercomparison in the framework of the review of the unified
EMEP-model. TNO-Rep. R2004/282
Loon, M. et al., 2007 Evaluation of long term ozone simulations from seven regional scale air
quality models and their ensemble average. Atm.Env. 41, 2083-2097
Meij, A. de, et al., 2009 The impact of MM5 and WRF meteorology over complex terrain on
CHIMERE model calculations. Accepted for publication ACP.
McKeen, S.A. et al., 2005 Assesment of an ensemble of seven real-time ozone forecasts over
eastern North America during the summer of 2005. J. of Geoph. Res. 110 ( D21), D21307
Roemer, M. et al., 2003 Ozone trends according to ten different dispersion models. EUROTRAC-
ISS Rep.
Sartelet, K.N. et al., 2007. Simulation of aerosols abd gas-phase species over Europe with the
Polyphemus system, Part 1-Model-to-data comparison for 2001. Atm.Env. 41, 6111-6118
Stern, R.M. et al., 2008. A model intercomparison study focussing on episodes with elevated
PM10 concentrations. Atm.Env. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.068.
Vautard, R. et al.: Skill and uncertainty of a regional air quality model ensemble. Accepted for
publication, Atm.Env. (2008)
6. Questions and Answers
S.T. Rao:
Can we agree to use the term model evaluation instead of model validation
from here on?
Answer:
Yes, we can agree, especially because from early on in these kind of
studies the term evaluation has been used most often.
S.T. Rao:
AQ-models cannot perform any better than met.models which assimilate
observations. So, can we think of using met.model's performance as the target
level for AQ-models performance?
Answer:
This is a valid remark, and I think we can follow that line for AQ-
models. It would be interesting to use also chemical data assimilation in this
respect.
