12. Ku, C., CENRAP, “CMAQ and CAMx Simulations for January and July 2002”, National
RPO Modeling Meeting, Denver, CO, 2005.
• Compared CMAQ and CAMx 36-km simulations Based on January and July 2002
(basB) over a continental US domain.
• Indicated that the results were mixed for the models over CENRAP generally. Both
models performed acceptably for PM2.5 and sulfate in the summer (when sulfate is
abundant) but they were overpredicted in the winter compared against IMPROVE
• CAMx significantly overpredicted nitrate in the winter (higher prediction than
CMAQ), but has better performance in OM (lower prediction than CMAQ), based on
performance measures of normalized bias and errors.
• The study also showed mixed results for the models in three climatically different
regions in CENRAP that contain Class I areas, with varying performance depending on
region and season. This finding points up the difficulty in improving model
performance over the whole CENRAP domain.
13. Eder B. and Yu S., “An Evaluation of the 2003 Release of Models-3/CMAQ”, CMAS
Annual workshop, RTP, NC, 2003.
• Illustrated CMAQ 2003 evaluation for two episodes (winter 2002 and Summer 1999)
for O3 and PM2.5 species against AIRS, CASTNet, IMPROVE, and STN. Suggested
the use of the performance metrics of Normalized Mean Bias (NMB)and Normalized
n901 - n902 - n903 - n904 - n905 - n906 - n907 - n908 - n909 - n910 - n911 - n912 - n913 - n914 - n915 - n916 - n917 - n918 - n919 - n920 - n921 - n922 - n923 - n924 - n925 - n926 - n927 - n928 - n929 - n930 - n931 - n932 - n933 - n934 - n935 - n936 - n937 - n938 - n939 - n940 - n941 - n942 - n943 - n944 - n945 - n946 - n947 - n948 - n949 - n950
castellano: DISPER CUSTIC DESCAR RADIA italiano:
deutsch: DIS CUS DES RAD
castellano: DIS CUS DES RAD english: DIS CUS DES RAD
português: DIS CUS DES RAD italiano: DIS CUS DES RAD
français: DIS CUS DES RAD