Zong-Liang Yang Guo-Yue Niu, Enrique Rosero, Xiaoyan Jiang, and Lindsey Gulden Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Coupled modelling - snow Patrick Samuelsson Rossby Centre, SMHI
Advertisements

Surface Water Quantity Model Development Connely Baldwin USU.
Zong-Liang Yang Guo-Yue Niu Hua Su The University of Texas at Austin Modeling Frozen Soil and Subgrid Snow Cover in CLM CCSM LWGM March 28,
New Directions for WRF Land Surface Modeling 1 Polar WRF Workshop – 3 November 2011 Michael Barlage Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) National Center.
Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg, Germany Institute of Landscape Systems Analysis Funded by Martina Puhlmann, Hubert.
VIC Model Status Blowing Snow and Lake Algorithms Princeton Meeting December 4, 2006.
Hydrological Modeling FISH 513 April 10, Overview: What is wrong with simple statistical regressions of hydrologic response on impervious area?
Outline Background, climatology & variability Role of snow in the global climate system Indicators of climate change Future projections & implications.
Simulate Urban-induced Climate Change Via EOS Observations and Land Surface Model Dr. Menglin Jin, Meteorology Dept, U University of Maryland, College.
A Discussion of Groundwater Modeling and Climate Change By Leslie Llado.
Land Surface Models & Surface Water Hydrology Cédric DAVID.
Improved Land Modeling for Drought Monitoring and Seasonal Hydrological Prediction Including Groundwater Mickael Ek, Rongqian Yang, Youlong Xia, Jesse.
MODELING OF COLD SEASON PROCESSES Snow Ablation and Accumulation Frozen Ground Processes.
WRF-VIC: The Flux Coupling Approach L. Ruby Leung Pacific Northwest National Laboratory BioEarth Project Kickoff Meeting April 11-12, 2011 Pullman, WA.
WaterSmart, Reston, VA, August 1-2, 2011 Steve Markstrom and Lauren Hay National Research Program Denver, CO Jacob LaFontaine GA Water.
Rongqian Yang, Ken Mitchell, Jesse Meng Impact of Different Land Models & Different Initial Land States on CFS Summer and Winter Reforecasts Acknowledgment.
Noah land surface model working group meeting, Boulder, 15 July 2007 Planned Noah Changes in WRF Changes in model physics Changes in land surface fields.
Advancements in Simulating Land Hydrologic Processes for Land Surface Modeling (LSM) Hua Su Presentation for Physical Climatology.
An empirical formulation of soil ice fraction based on in situ observations Mark Decker, Xubin Zeng Department of Atmospheric Sciences, the University.
Advances in Macroscale Hydrology Modeling for the Arctic Drainage Basin Dennis P. Lettenmaier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University.
NCA-LDAS Meeting, Sept 23, 2014 NCA-LDAS: An Integrated Terrestrial Water Analysis System for the National Climate Assessment “Water Indicators” Hiroko.
Guo-Yue Niu and Zong-Liang Yang The Department of Geological Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Evaluation of snow simulations from CAM2/CLM2.0.
JULES: Joint UK Land Environment Simulator A community land surface scheme.
1 G.-Y. Niu, 1 Z.-L. Yang, 2 K. E. Mitchell, 3 F. Chen, 2 M. B. Ek, 3 M. Barlage, et al. 1 DGS, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin 2 NCEP, NOAA-NWS,
NW NCNE SCSESW Rootzone: TOTAL PERCENTILEANOMALY Noah VEGETATION TYPE 2-meter Column Soil Moisture GR2/OSU LIS/Noah 01 May Climatology.
LL-III physics-based distributed hydrologic model in Blue River Basin and Baron Fork Basin Li Lan (State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower.
Winter Processes in WEPS Fred Fox Wind Erosion Research Unit Manhattan, KS.
Diagram for the model structures Snow Cover and Runoff in Western China Guo-Yue Nu and Zong-Liang Yang The Dept. of Geological Sciences, The University.
NCEP Production Suite Review: Land-Hydrology at NCEP
Land Surface Processes in Global Climate Models (1)
Coupling of the Common Land Model (CLM) to RegCM in a Simulation over East Asia Allison Steiner, Bill Chameides, Bob Dickinson Georgia Institute of Technology.
An Overview of the Noah- Distributed Land Surface Model David J. Gochis, Wei Yu, Fei Chen, Kevin Manning WRF Land Surface Modeling Workshop Sep. 13, 2005.
Status report from the Lead Centre for Surface Processes and Assimilation E. Rodríguez-Camino (INM) and S. Gollvik (SMHI)
Guo-Yue Niu and Zong-Liang Yang Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin Prepared for NCEP-NCAR-NASA-OHD-UT.
Andes-Amazon Project: Hydrology Model-Data Intercomparison Brad Christoffersen Nov. 08, 2010 Moore Foundation.
Improve Noah snow model treatment based on SNOTEL data Michael Barlage, Fei Chen, Mukul Tewari, and Kyoko Ikeda.
Rongqian Yang, Kenneth Mitchell, Jesse Meng NCEP Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) Summer and Winter Season Reforecast Experiments with the NCEP Coupled.
Aihui Wang, Kaiyuan Li, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington Integration of the VIC model.
Understanding hydrologic changes: application of the VIC model Vimal Mishra Assistant Professor Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Gandhinagar
Vegetation Phenology and the Hydrological Cycle of Monsoons
Update on LMWG Proposed Hydrologic Improvements to CLM Overview of proposed hydrology schemes (3) CAM/CLM and offline CLM simulations – Follow the water.
Features and performance of the NCAR Community Land Model (CLM): Permafrost, snow, and hydrology David Lawrence NCAR / CGD Boulder, CO.
Sampling Network in Illinois Impact of Water Table Dynamics on Hydrological Simulation of the NCAR CLM Min Hui Lo, Pat J.-F. Yeh, and James S. Famiglietti.
Implementation and preliminary test of the unified Noah LSM in WRF F. Chen, M. Tewari, W. Wang, J. Dudhia, NCAR K. Mitchell, M. Ek, NCEP G. Gayno, J. Wegiel,
DTerEST, DTerIdF PAGE 1 Task 1 : to assess the refreshing potential of a VGR Task 2 : to develop relevant indicators dedicated to VGR environmental impacts.
Estimating Groundwater Recharge in Porous Media Aquifers in Texas Bridget Scanlon Kelley Keese Robert Reedy Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of.
Snow processes in ORCHIDEE Tao Wang, C. Ottlé, P. Ciais, etc..
1 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Vegetation dynamics in simulations of radiatively-forced climate change Richard A. Betts, Chris D.
AOM 4643 Principles and Issues in Environmental Hydrology.
1 Guo-Yue Niu, Zong-Liang Yang, Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin and Ken Mitchell NCEP.
Dominguez Channel Watershed Pollutant Transport and Total Maximum Daily Loads: Modeling, Analysis, and Outreach Principal Investigators: Norman L. Miller.
Hydro-Thermo Dynamic Model: HTDM-1.0
Diagnosis of Performance of the Noah LSM Snow Model *Ben Livneh, *D.P. Lettenmaier, and K. E. Mitchell *Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Washington.
Matt Rodell NASA GSFC Multi-Sensor Snow Data Assimilation Matt Rodell 1, Zhong-Liang Yang 2, Ben Zaitchik 3, Ed Kim 1, and Rolf Reichle 1 1 NASA Goddard.
Performance Comparison of an Energy- Budget and the Temperature Index-Based (Snow-17) Snow Models at SNOTEL Stations Fan Lei, Victor Koren 2, Fekadu Moreda.
Perspectives on water cycling in ecosystem models Sarah Davis June 12, 2012 Water in Bioenergy Agroecosystems Workshop.
1 Xiaoyan Jiang, Guo-Yue Niu and Zong-Liang Yang The Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin 03/20/2007 Feedback between the atmosphere,
An advanced snow parameterization for the models of atmospheric circulation Ekaterina E. Machul’skaya¹, Vasily N. Lykosov ¹Hydrometeorological Centre of.
Land surface memory & hydrological cycle over the U.S. west coast states & monsoon region Yun Fan and Huug van del Dool CPC/NCEP/NOAA
Upgrading Community Land Model (CLM) Hydrology Incorporation of the VIC Surface Runoff and Baseflow Schemes Kaiyuan Y. Li and Dennis P. Lettenmaier University.
North American Regional Climate Simulations with WRF/Noah-MP: Validation and the effect of groundwater interaction Michael Barlage Mukul Tewari, Fei Chen,
Community Land Model (CLM)
Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS)
Department of Hydrology and Water Resources
Streamflow Simulations of the Terrestrial Arctic Regime
Introduction to Land Information System (LIS)
Kostas M. Andreadis1, Dennis P. Lettenmaier1
Runoff Simulations in Region12 (or almost the State of Texas)
Mire parameterization
J.T. Kiehl National Center for Atmospheric Research
Presentation transcript:

Zong-Liang Yang Guo-Yue Niu, Enrique Rosero, Xiaoyan Jiang, and Lindsey Gulden Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin Prepared for NCAR Noah Meeting July 25-26, 2007 Noah Development at UT-Austin

2 Towards a physically complete model Water Space Time

3 Improving Hydrological Representation in the Community Noah Land Surface Model for Intraseasonal to Interannual Prediction Studies PI: Zong-Liang Yang Co-PIs: Guo-Yue Niu, Fei Chen, David Gochis Collaborator: Ken Mitchell Funded by NOAA CPPA Summer 2007 – Summer 2010

4 New Developments include:  A 3-Layer physically-based snow model  A simple TOPMODEL-based runoff model  A simple groundwater model  Modifications on frozen soil permeability  Evaluation against snow and runoff data over grassland  A interactive vegetation canopy model (LAI is a predicted variable)

5 Model Development at UT-Austin ( Improved TOPMODEL runoff (Yang and Niu, 2003, GPC; Niu and Yang, 2003, GPC; Niu et al., 2005, JGR) Improved frozen soil scheme (Niu and Yang, 2006, JHM) Multi-layer snow (Yang and Niu, 2003, GPC) Snow and vegetation canopy interaction (Niu and Yang, 2004, JGR) Snow cover fraction (Niu and Yang, 2007, JGR) Global unconfined aquifer/groundwater component (Niu et al., 2007, JGR) Comparison of stochastic and physically-based subgrid snow cover fraction for snow assimilation (Su et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2007) These physical parameterizations are expected to work for both climate and weather models.

6 Snow layer number and depth The total no. of layers can be up to 3 layers depending on total snow depth: Δz(-2): ~ 0.05m Snow Soil Δz(-1): 0.05 ~ 0.10m Δz(0): 0.10 ~ (snowh–Δz(-1)-Δz(-2)) T(-2) T(-1) T(-0) T(4) T(3) T(2) T(1) 0.1m 0.3m 0.6m 1.0m Tg Aquifer ice(-2), liq(-2), ρs(-2) ice(-1), liq(-1), ρs(-1) ice(0), liq(0), ρs(0)

7 Solving snow temperature B(-2) C(-2) T(-2) R(-2) A(-1) B(-1) C(-1) T(-1) R(-1) 0 A(0) B(0) C(0) T(0) R(0) 0 0 A(1) B(1) C(1) 0 0 X T(1) = R(1) A(2) B(2) C(2) D(2) T(2) R(2) A(3) B(3) C(3) T(3) R(3) A(4) C(4) T(4) R(4) A(i), B(i), C(i), R(i) are functions of λ(i) - thermal conductivity C(i) - heat capacity z(i) - layer-bottom depth from the snow/soil surface (neg.) R(-nsn+1) is a function of G: G = λ(1) ( T12 – T(-nsn+1) )/ ( 0.5*dz(-nsn+1) ) T12 ~ skin temperature? T12 = F (Ta + T12A + T12B)

8 Available Energy for melting/freezing The energy excess or deficit needed to change snow/soil temperature to melting/freezing point: H fm (i) = C (i) * dz(i) * (T frz - T(i) ) / dt where i = -nsn+1, nsoil (for snow and soil) When ice(i) > 0 and T(i) > T frz, melting occurs, When liq(i) > 0 and T(i) < T frz, freezing occurs T(i) = T frz For soil, only when liq(i) – supercool(i) > 0 and T(i) < T frz, freezing occurs (because of absorptive and capillary forces by soil particles) Supercool(i) has two options: Koren et al (1999) Niu and Yang (2006) Water flow through snowpack: holding capacity = 0.03 m3/m3 T frz T

9 Results - snow

10 Results – surface albedo Α = α v + (1-f veg )*f snow (α snow –α v ) Α = α v + (1-(1-f b )*f veg )*f snow (α snow –α v ) where f b is the buried fraction of the canopy Snow aging – grain size, soot, leaf litter

11 Results – surface albedo Melting Energy is too low – T12 is the forcing of snow/soil system Α = α v + (1-(1-f b )*f veg )*f snow (α snow –α v ) where f b is the buried fraction of the canopy

12 Snow Skin Temperature How T12 performs compared to observations (A France grassland dataset) ?

13 Snow Skin Temperature Newton-Raphson Iterative Method Based on energy balance - Sg + L(Tg) + H(Tg) + LE(Tg) + G(Tg) = 0. Iteration of all the fluxes and stability correction.

14 Snow Skin Temperature How Tg performs in VISA (A France grassland dataset) ?

15 Available Energy for Snowmelt Compare snowmelt energy between VISA and Noah-3L

16 A Simple Groundwater Model Water storage in an unconfined aquifer: Recharge Rate: Gravitational Drainage Upward Flow under capillary forces Buffer Zone

17 A Simple TOPMODEL Model Surface Runoff : R s = P fsat f sat = F max e – C f zwt (1 – f frz ) + f frz p = precipitation zwt = the depth to water table f = the runoff decay parameter that determines recession curve Subsurface Runoff : R sb = R sb,max e –f zwt R sb,max = the maximum subsurface runoff when the grid-mean water table is zero. It should be related to lateral hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer and local slopes (e -λ ). SIMTOP parameters: Two calibration parameters R sb,max (~10mm/day) and f (1.0~2.0) Two topographic parameters F max (~0.37) and C (~0.6)

18 Runoff – Sleepers River

19 Runoff – Sleepers River RUNOFF1 + RUNOFF2 RUNOFF1 RUNOFF2

20 Water table depth – Sleepers River

21 Soil Moisture – Sleepers River

22 Soil Moisture – Champion, Illinois f = 1.0 f = 1.5

23 Soil Moisture – Frozen Soil Impacts SH2O(4) SH2O(3) SH2O(2) SH20(1) In default Noah: Freezing = Drying Niu and Yang (2006): Fractional frozen area is used to modify soil hydraulic properties. K(i) = (1 – f frz ) K(θ) SH20 -> SMC

24 Stomatal conductance is linearly related to photosynthesis: (The “Ball-Berry-Collatz” parameterization) Photosynthesis is controlled by three limitations (The Farquahar-Berry model) : Enzyme kinetics (“rubisco”) LightStarch stomatal conductance photosynthesis CO2 at leaf sfc RH at leaf sfc Photosynthesis and Conductance

25 Photosynthesis and Carbon Allocation

26 Simulated versus observed guaged precipitation over the Central U.S.

27 MODIS NDVI-derived and model simulated greenness fraction over the Central U.S. (in August) Fg = (NDVIi - NDVImin) / (NDVImax - NDVImin) NDVImin= 0.04 and NDVImax= 0.52 (Gutman and Ignatov 1997)

28 Greenness fraction differences for three experiments

29 Water balance over the Central U.S. in JJA, 2002 VariablesPrecipitation (mm/day) Evapotranspiration (mm/day) Moisture Flux Convergence (mm/day) NARR2.3642* DEFAULT DV DVGW GW Note: * using CPC observed gauged precipitation

30 Cal/Val Plan:  IHOP (9 sites); FluxNet (23 sites across the globe)  Noah-DV  Noah-GW  Noah-DVGW  Noah-STD  Noah-DVBB (Ball-Berry rc + LAI)  Noah-STDBB (Ball-Berry rc only)  Noah-DVGWBB  Noah-GWBB (Multi-objective optimization tool: MOSCEM on Lonestar)  LBA-MIP  Noah-distributed  SIMGM added  Will add FLDWAV

31 Summary 3L snow model improves the snow simulations. Further work is needed for surface energy balance/skin temperature (snowmelt energy). SIMTOP and SIMGM are successfully coupled to Noah. Soil moisture variability warrants more analysis. Frozen soil impacts on soil moisture are refined. DV and variants are added. Cal/Val plans are defined.