4.6 Article

Application of empirical orthogonal functions to evaluate ozone simulations with regional and global models

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2002JD003151

关键词

empirical orthogonal functions; principal components; air pollution; ozone; regional modeling; global modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Empirical orthogonal functions are used together with standard statistical metrics to evaluate the ability of models with different spatial resolutions to reproduce observed patterns of surface ozone (O-3) in the eastern United States in the summer of 1995. We examine simulations with the regional Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform model (horizontal resolution of 36 km(2)) and the global GEOS-CHEM model (2degrees x 2.5degrees and 4degrees x 5degrees). As the model resolution coarsens, the ability to resolve local O-3 maxima (O-3 greater than or equal to 90 ppbv) is compromised, but the spatial correlation improves. This result shows that synoptic-scale processes modulating O-3 concentrations are easier to capture in models than processes occurring on smaller scales. Empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs) derived from the observed O-3 fields reveal similar modes of variability when averaged onto the three model horizontal resolutions. The EOFs appear to represent (1) an east-west pattern associated with frontal passages, (2) a midwest-northeast pattern associated with migratory high-pressure systems, and (3) a southeast stagnation pattern linked to westward extension of the Bermuda High. All models capture the east-west and southeast EOFs, but the midwest-northeast EOF is misplaced in GEOS-CHEM. GEOS-CHEM captures the principal components of the observational EOFs when the model fields are projected onto these EOFs, implying that it can resolve the contribution of the EOFs to the observed variance. We conclude that coarse-resolution global models can successfully simulate the synoptic conditions leading to high-O-3 episodes in the eastern United States.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据