1 / 20

Analysis of a Spring-time Snowstorm: April 1 st , 2011

Max Wiosna 05/09/11 GIS-Dr. John Deleo & Dr. Nolan Atkins. Analysis of a Spring-time Snowstorm: April 1 st , 2011. Surface Analysis. Abstract.

babu
Télécharger la présentation

Analysis of a Spring-time Snowstorm: April 1 st , 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Max Wiosna 05/09/11 GIS-Dr. John Deleo & Dr. Nolan Atkins Analysis of a Spring-time Snowstorm: April 1st, 2011

  2. Surface Analysis

  3. Abstract • An analysis of snowfall data was conducted from data taken from NWS offices in the Northeast. With the help of the elevation data from the National Elevation Dataset at the USGS, elevation dependency was analyzed. Multiple interpolation methods were used to contour or shade snowfall data and overlay it over the elevation raster of the Northeast. Lower snowfall amounts were commonly found in valley locations, as was higher snowfall amounts over the higher terrain. It was found that contouring the snowfall data, and overlaying it on the elevation raster, worked better to see contrasting snowfall amounts in locations where the elevation changed rapidly.

  4. Project Description • The analysis of a spring-time Northeast snowstorm, and how snowfall totals differed in areas of sharp elevation gradients. • Thesis Statement: Locations that received snowfall from this storm, where the elevation changed sharply from one point to the next, should see a wide range in snowfall totals.

  5. Data Aquisition • NWS snowfall data- • http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/pns.shtml • Northeast Elevation data- • http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm • U.S. cities- • Shapefile taken from Hail lab • U.S. states- • Shapefile taken from Hail lab

  6. Methods/Data Analysis Techniques Used • Converting snowfall data from an excel spreadsheet to a Shapefile • Manipulating Elevation data • Interpolation methods- • Spline • IDW • Natural Neighbor • Kriging • Shading/Contouring • Labeling and choosing color tables

  7. Snowfall Data Conversion • In excel there was a column for city, snowfall, lat, lon, and state. • Once all the data was inputted, I had about 410 data points. • Afterwards, go into Arc Catalog and right click on the folder your data is in. Then go to new and click on shapefile. • Then make sure the feature is a point and that the projection was projected coordinate system, world, and then WGS 1984 since it was lat and lon data attached to each point.

  8. Snowfall Data Conversion(cont.)

  9. Manipulating Elevation Rasters • So first I got all the elevation Raster’s piece by piece. • Then I combined them all in Arc Catalog. • To do that you need to go to: Toolbox->Data Management Tools->Raster->Raster Dataset->Mosaic. • Afterwards you just put all of your Raster’s together into one. • Just set number of bands to 1 and make it 32-bit.

  10. Interpolation Methods Explained • Spline- • Instead of averaging, it fits a stretchable surface based on the values of the points. • Its good for getting estimated values above the min and max. • It isn’t good when you have two points close by with extreme differences. • IDW- Inverse Data Weighted method • One size fits all method-it basically averages out all the points in the dataset. • Works best for a dense data set with lots of points. • Only negative about it is that it can’t interpolate above or below the min and max value in the dataset. • Natural Neighbor- • The value of each cell is a weighted average of all the points in the cell. • The weight is proportional to each point in the cell. • What you get is a Raster. • Kriging- • Like IDW, the surface is obtained through a weighted average of all the points, but kriging weights each and every point to determine how much correlation each has in the cell. • Much more math involved then any other method.

  11. IDW Output: IDW3- Power = 5, Points = 24 IDW2- Power = 0.5, Points = 24 IDW1- Power = 2, Points = 12

  12. Kriging Output Kriging1- Universal, Linear, 12 Points Kriging2- Universal, Linear, 24 Points

  13. Natural Neighbor Output Cell Size: 0.00623

  14. Contouring Natural Neighbor Contour Interval: 1 inch Input Raster: Your Natural Neighbor Interpolation of your snowfall data Labeling: Go to properties, go to labels, pick the field contour

  15. Results/Findings: Final Image

  16. Results/Findings: Locations of Interest, Area #1

  17. Area #2

  18. Area #3

  19. Concluding Comments • So, in all three areas, there were degrees of ranging snowfall amounts across widely varying terrain. • Some were more pronounced then others, but the signal was still there. • Other areas were very difficult to explain due to possibly being too far away from the storm, or possibly being shadowed. • Southern New England showed more of a signal than Northern New England. • Overall thesis statement was somewhat validated through the areas and locations shown.

  20. OMG! That’s a ton of Snow! THE END! Questions?

More Related