Advertisement

Sensitivity Analysis of a Climatological Air Trajectory Model

  • Perry J. Samson
  • Randy J. Fox
  • Richard A. Foltman
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 3)

Abstract

The modeling of regional-scale transport and deposition of atmospheric pollutants is complicated by the considerable uncertainties involved in atmospheric process parameterizations. Beyond the uncertainties involved in parameterizing dispersion over relatively short distances (say less than 50 km) is the need to estimate dispersion over long time scales, usually including multi-diurnal cycles. Moreover, other atmospheric processes, usually ignored, must be considered. Dry deposition plays an important role as a removal process over long time scales and must be parameterized in a physically realistic manner. The removal of pollutants by wet deposition is an extremely complex process parameterized at best to be a simple non-linear function. Chemical conversion of primary pollutants to secondary is also poorly understood but has been parameterized for some pollutants, notably sulfur dioxide to sulfate, as a first-order chemical conversion. The purpose of this paper is to examine the sensitivity of individual trajectory model runs to variations in model parameterizations. This information is intended to help define the confidence in which we can hope to characterize the effects of anthropogenic emissions on receptor locations far downwind of the source.

Keywords

Sulfur Dioxide Deposition Velocity Vertical Wind Shear Trajectory Model Chemical Conversion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dana, M.T., Hales, J.M., and Wolf, M.A., 1975, Rain scavenging of SO2 and sulfate from power plant plumes, J. gepohys. Res., 80: 4119.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dingle, A.N. and Lee, Y., 1973, An analysis of in-cloud scavenging, J. Appl. Meteor., 12: 1295.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Engelmann, R.J., Scavenging prediction using ratios of concentrations in air and precipitation, AEC Symp. Ser. Precipitation Scavenging (1970), 475.Google Scholar
  4. Gillani, N.V., Husar, R.B., Husar, J.D., Patterson, D.E., and Wilson, W.E., 1978, Project MISTT: Kinetics of particulate sulfur formation in a power plant plume out to 300 km. Atmos. Environment, 12: 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heffter, J.L., 1980: “Air Resources Laboratories Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Model (ARL-ATAD),” NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL-ARL-81, Silver Springs, MD.Google Scholar
  6. Samson, P.J., 1980, Trajectory analysis of summertime sulfate concentrations in the northeastern United States, J. Appl. Meteor., 19: 1382.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Scott, B.C., 1978, Parameterization of sulfate removal by precipitation, J. Appl. Meteor, 17: 1375.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shieh, C.M., Wesley, M.L., and Hicks, B.B., 1979, Estimated dry deposition velocities of sulfur over the eastern United States and surrounding regions, Atmos. Environment, 13: 1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Perry J. Samson
    • 1
  • Randy J. Fox
    • 1
  • Richard A. Foltman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic ScienceUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations