by P Kumar, Ph.D.
Atmospheric computer models
1. Currently there is no scale existing to test the accuracy of any EPA computer models for prediction of Air Pollution, any where in the world. In a recent publication of mine(Experimental technique of calibration of symmetrical air pollution models, J. Earth Syst. Sci. 114, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 1-7.) I have given an Index(SAPMI) which can be used for the purpose.
2. I am interested to know the opinion of your government and your own openion, on compulsorily implementing it i.e. before any such prediction models are used for research/commercial purpose, its SAPMI Index values are marked on the 'software Copy'.
3. I would be most curiously looking forward to your response, please.Barry's Response
- Hi Prabhat,
First of all, I'm not an expert at evaluating the quality, precision, or accuracy of these models. You've probably got me beat. My only degree is a B.Sc. I studied physics.
Obviously, these models aren't perfect, better ones can and have been developed, and any model can only go so far. In my jurisdiction, ISC, a primative model by any standard, is accepted for lower intermediate air quality assessments (written before July 2009). Many other North American territories also accept its results as a baseline. I live in Alberta, Canada, which has mostly rolling terrain.
I think CALPUFF is better, but it's not necessary for my area. It is used for environmental impact assessment
To save money and be efficient, we use what the government officials understand. ISC's simple evaluation is fine with us if our regulatory body accepts it.
There's a general consensus that the model overpredicts ambient concentrations in ambiguous situations. Officials seem to think that's good enough, and more refined modelling isn't necessary unless there's a problem. In which case one might choose CALPUFF
or one of the customized or proprietary assessment computer models if it is justifiable.
I haven't read the paper you suggested on the SAPMI index, but I think I will.Search
this site for more information now.
To begin, I would like to thank you for reaching out to me and sharing your valuable insight into the accuracy of the EPA's computer models for predicting air pollution.
It's clear that you put a lot of time and effort into your research, and your dedication to improving environmental predictions is really commendable.
It's intriguing that you suggest using the SAPMI Index to test prediction models' accuracy.
I'm inspired by your commitment to making these models more robust and reliable. Understanding and mitigating environmental challenges requires us to constantly strive for accuracy and reliability.
My own opinion and the opinion of our government is that open discussions and collaborative efforts are key to progress. You could make prediction models more transparent and accountable by ensuring they meet the highest standards before they're used for research or commercial use. It's in line with our goal of making well-informed decisions that make a positive impact on the environment and communities.Engage relevant stakeholders, like government agencies and environmental experts,
in conversations. It's possible to make the future cleaner and healthier by working together and considering innovative ideas like the SAPMI Index.
I want to thank you again for your dedication to this issue. Your curiosity and passion are appreciated, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about your work.