| description abstract | Under the direction of the AMS Steering Committee for the EPA Cooperative Agreement on Air Quality Modeling, a small group of scientists convened to consider the question of uncertainty in air quality modeling. Because the group was particularly concerned with the regulatory use of models, its discussion focused on modeling tall stack, point source emissions. The group agreed that air quality model results should be viewed as containing both reducible error and inherent uncertainty. Reducible error results from improper or inadequate meteorological and air quality data inputs, and from inadequacies in the models. Inherent uncertainty results from the basic stochastic nature of the turbulent atmospheric motions that are responsible for transport and diffusion of released materials. Modelers should acknowledge that all their predictions to date contain some associated uncertainty and strive also to quantify uncertainty. How can the uncertainty be quantified? There was no consensus from the group as to precisely how uncertainty should be calculated. One subgroup, which addressed statistical procedures, suggested that uncertainty information could be obtained from comparisons of observations and predictions. Following recommendations from a previous AMS workshop on performance evaluation (Fox. 1981), the subgroup suggested construction of probability distribution functions from the differences between observations and predictions. Further, they recommended that relatively new computer-intensive statistical procedures be considered to improve the quality of uncertainty estimates for the extreme value statistics of interest in regulatory applications. A second subgroup, which addressed the basic nature of uncertainty in a stochastic system, also recommended that uncertainty be quantified by consideration of the differences between observations and predictions. They suggested that the average of the difference squared was appropriate to isolate the inherent uncertainty that arises because individual realizations of the concentrations are different from the average concentrations. The average square difference allows quantification of this fact. Viewed in this framework, uncertainty is related to the variance of concentration fluctuations and the integral time scale of the turbulent flow. How can the uncertainty be communicated to decision makers? There was concern expressed by a third subgroup that non-technical people would have little understanding of quantified uncertainty. This places an increased burden on modelers to ensure that their efforts are useful. Similarly, decision makers will need to educate themselves and accept the challenge of decision making with quantified uncertainty. | |
