Sensitivity of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration multilayer model to instrument error and parameterization uncertainty

被引:29
作者
Cooter, EJ [1 ]
Schwede, DB
机构
[1] US EPA, NERL, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27711 USA
[2] NOAA, Atmospher Sci Modeling Div, Air Resources Lab, Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1029/1999JD901080
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
The response of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration multilayer inferential dry deposition velocity model (NOAA-MLM) to error in meteorological inputs and model parameterization is reported. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess the uncertainty in NOAA-MLM deposition velocity V-d estimates for ozone (O-3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitric acid (HNO3) associated with measurements of meteorological variables (including temperature, humidity, radiation, wind speed, wind direction, and leaf area index). Summer daylight scenarios for grass, corn, soybean, oak, and pine were considered. Model sensitivity to uncertainty in the leaf area index (LAI), minimum stomatal resistance, and soil moisture parameterizations was explored. For SO2 and HNO3, instrument error associated with the measurement of wind speed and direction resulted in the greatest V-d error. Depending On vegetation type, the most important source of uncertainty due to instrument error for the V-d of O-3 was LAI. Of the model parameterizations studied, accurate estimation of temporal aspects of the annual LAI profile and the characterization of soil moisture supply and demand are most important to model-estimated V-d uncertainty. Considered individually, these factors can result in SO2 and HNO3 V-d estimate uncertainty of +/-25% and O-3 estimate uncertainty greater than 60%. For single plant species settings, reductions in estimate uncertainty should be possible with minor algorithmic modification, inclusion of more species-appropriate LAI profiles, and careful application of remote sensing technology.
引用
收藏
页码:6695 / 6707
页数:13
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
CHINKIN L, 1994, STI940111437FR
[2]   Dry deposition calculations for the clean air status and trends network [J].
Clarke, JF ;
Edgerton, ES ;
Martin, BE .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1997, 31 (21) :3667-3678
[3]   COMPARISON OF ANNULAR DENUDERS AND FILTER PACKS FOR ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLING [J].
DASCH, JM ;
CADLE, SH ;
KENNEDY, KG ;
MULAWA, PA .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1989, 23 (12) :2775-2782
[4]   MODELING GASEOUS DRY DEPOSITION OVER REGIONAL SCALES WITH SATELLITE-OBSERVATIONS .1. MODEL DEVELOPMENT [J].
GAO, W ;
WESELY, ML .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1995, 29 (06) :727-737
[5]   MODELING GASEOUS DRY DEPOSITION OVER REGIONAL SCALES WITH SATELLITE-OBSERVATIONS .2. DERIVING SURFACE CONDUCTANCES FROM AVHRR DATA [J].
GAO, W .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1995, 29 (06) :739-747
[6]   DRY DEPOSITION OF SULFUR-DIOXIDE TO LAND AND WATER SURFACES [J].
GARLAND, JA .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES A-MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES, 1977, 354 (1678) :245-268
[7]   DRY DEPOSITION INFERENTIAL MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES .1. DESIGN AND TESTS OF A PROTOTYPE METEOROLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL-SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING DRY DEPOSITION [J].
HICKS, BB ;
HOSKER, RP ;
MEYERS, TP ;
WOMACK, JD .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART A-GENERAL TOPICS, 1991, 25 (10) :2345-2359
[8]   A PRELIMINARY MULTIPLE RESISTANCE ROUTINE FOR DERIVING DRY DEPOSITION VELOCITIES FROM MEASURED QUANTITIES [J].
HICKS, BB ;
BALDOCCHI, DD ;
MEYERS, TP ;
HOSKER, RP ;
MATT, DR .
WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, 1987, 36 (3-4) :311-330
[9]  
HUSCHKE RE, 1989, GLOSSARY METEOROLOGY
[10]   INTERPRETATION OF VARIATIONS IN LEAF WATER POTENTIAL AND STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE FOUND IN CANOPIES IN FIELD [J].
JARVIS, PG .
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1976, 273 (927) :593-610