1 / 8

Improving Cost Effective Air Quality Forecasting UPDATE 10/02/2008:

Improving Cost Effective Air Quality Forecasting UPDATE 10/02/2008:. New Categorical Metrics (Kang 2007) Interpretation of new metrics Use in AQ model evaluation Direct applications to cost-effective AQ forecasting. Review. Project Goals Minimize money spent due to incorrect forecasts

odessa-cantrell
Download Presentation

Improving Cost Effective Air Quality Forecasting UPDATE 10/02/2008:

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. Improving Cost Effective Air Quality ForecastingUPDATE 10/02/2008: New Categorical Metrics (Kang 2007) Interpretation of new metrics Use in AQ model evaluation Direct applications to cost-effective AQ forecasting

  2. Review • Project Goals • Minimize money spent due to incorrect forecasts • MD/VA Free ride program • VA cost per day  $120,000 • MDOT cost per day  $35,000 - $40,000 • National Air Quality Forecasting System (NAQFS) Updates • Domain, Surface parameters, canopy uptake • Methods of Model Evaluation • Discrete (RMSE, N/MB, N/ME, r) • Categorical (A, B, FAR, CSI) • New Categorical (WSI, aH, aFAR)  Kang 2007)

  3. Traditional Categorical Metrics • Categorical Evaluation • Ozone threshold exceeded? • Was it forecasted to exceed? • Forecast Threshold • a  MISS HIGH • b  HIT HIGH • c  HIT LOW • d  MISS LOW

  4. Traditional Categorical Metrics

  5. New Categorical Metrics (Kang 2007) • WSI  Weighted Severity Index • Like CSI, only it includes (to a degree) near hits

  6. New Categorical Metrics (Kang 2007) • Modeled vs. Observed O3 • Area Hits (aH) and aFAR (Area False Alarm Rate) account for spatial near-hits

  7. New Categorical Metrics (Kang 2007) • Use 3x3 or 5x5 grid spaces to account for area • Adjust the Hit forecast (b/b+d) to include the area and not just the point…Same for FAR.

  8. Application to cost-effective AQ forecasting • Area forecasts are typical in operational forecasts • Warn an area, not a point • aH and aFAR account for these! • Assign a percent chance of missed forecast using WSI? • Decide minimum forecast value that statistically produces the best likelihood of an exceedance?

More Related