1 / 23

Experiment domain

Experiment domain. Evaporation models. Physically based. Temperature -based. Physically based models : Radiative parameterization. Shortwave radiation balance, R n. Longwave radiation balance, L n. Net available energy, Q n. R in. a R in. LW in. LW out. ET. H. B. A d.  W

shanta
Télécharger la présentation

Experiment domain

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. Experiment domain

  2. Evaporation models Physically based Temperature -based

  3. Physically based models: Radiative parameterization Shortwave radiation balance, Rn Longwave radiation balance, Ln Net available energy, Qn Rin aRin LWin LWout ET H B Ad W t G Ground heat flux

  4. ea = actual vapor pressure Rcs = clear sky SW radiation Rtoa = top-of-atmosphere SW radiation ns = sunshine hours N = daylight hours Physically based models: Radiative parameterization Energy available for evaporation Qn is a function of surface assumptions: for Ep, extensive free water surface for Epan, point-scale, free water surface for ET, prevailing conditions for ETrc, well watered, short grass

  5. Uz = wind speed at height zm av = eddy diffusivity/eddy viscosity (neutral conditions) d = zero-plane displacement height k = von Kármán constant J = day of year Physically based models: Advective parameterizations Model wind functions: • Penman Ep • PenPan Epan • Kimberly Penman ETrc • Penman-Monteith ET • Penman-Monteith Ep • Penman-Monteith ETrc Theoretical vapor transfer function (“wind function”) zm =Uz measurement height zv =ea measurement height z0m = momentum roughness height z0v = water vapor roughness height z0 = aerodynamic roughness height of a free-water surface

  6. Δ = slope of SVP curve with T = desat/dt γ = psychrometric constant esat = saturated vapor pressure Physically based models: Penman Ep • dW/dt negligible at time-step. • unlimited water to surface, so Ep limited only by: • vapor transfer process, or • energy availability. • SVP curve is assumed linear from surface to height of measurement of ea, T. • assumptions for similarity profiles of velocity, specific humidity, and sensible heat apply: • sub-layer is stable, neutrally buoyant, • fluxes do not vary with height, • transport dynamics of water vapor and sensible heat are unaffected by quantities being transported. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  7. Physically based models: PenPan Epan • aP adjusts Penman Ep to replicate Epan observations. • accounts for instrumentation effects: • extra SW radiation interception by pan walls, • increased turbulence across water surface. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  8. Physically based models: Penman-Monteith ET • models fine-scale diffusion from plants and surface under variable moisture availability: • rs is “stomatal resistance,” a bulk measure of the resistance to the diffusion of water vapor from stomata within the vegetative canopy, reflects moisture availability restrictions, increasing under drier conditions. • ra is “aerodynamic resistance” to the diffusion of both water vapor and H from the canopy to the measurement height, depends on land cover (e.g., crop height) • Penman-MonteithET can then also be used for more specific cases of ETrc and Ep. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  9. Physically based models: Penman-Monteith Ep • in Penman-Monteith, Ep is a specific case of ET, with: • unlimited stomatal conductance, or zero rs (i.e., 1/rs = ∞), • ra specified for a free-water surface. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  10. Physically based models: Penman-Monteith ETrc • in Penman-Monteith, ETrc is a specific case of ET calculated for specific biological and physical conditions (reference crop): • hypothetical, well-watered crop of height h = 0.12 m, rs = 70 sec/m, a = 0.23, • Uz, T, and ea data from 2-m height, • ra implicitly specified as 208/U2 sec/m. • international standard (FAO-56). • very commonly used in agricultural community. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  11. Physically based models: Kimberly Penman ETrc • adjusts Penman Ep to model seasonality in vapor transfer process through aKP and bKP: • seasonal functions of day of year, • calibrated in Kimberly, ID. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  12. Tmax = maximum temperature Tmin = minimum temperature Temperature-based models: Hargreaves ETrc • derived for daily ETrc in agricultural regions. • utility where humidity, surface radiation, and Uz data are missing. • aH and bH calibrated on a monthly or yearly basis, with respective default values of 0 W/m2 and 1 for unadjusted Hargreaves ETrc. • (Tmax+Tmin)/2+17.8 term approximates D/(D+g) term in Penman-based combination equations. • DTR term models warming of surface air by radiation. • explicit link to solar radiation, but only in seasonal climatology, through Rtoa. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  13. Temperature-based models: Hamon Ep • very simple T-based formulation, • Included for potential comparison to Brekke et al. sensitivity work (USBR), • E[N] = climatological mean daylight hours per day [-] for the month containing the day of interest, • H = max number of daylight hours in day, • in freezing conditions, Ep =0. 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010

  14. CBRFC daily Ep 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010 PenPan (Epan) Penman Penman-Monteith Hamon (T-based) 0 mm/day 3 6 9 12

  15. Western Region daily Ep 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010 Penman Penman-Monteith Hamon

  16. CBRFC daily ETrc 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010 Penman-Monteith Kimberly Penman Hargreaves 0 mm/day 3 6 9 12

  17. Western Region daily ETrc 24hrs from 12Z 4/25/2010 Penman-Monteith Hargreaves

  18. Issues with physically based models • Concept: • both radiative and advective drivers explicitly modeled. • Advantages: • sound physical underpinnings, • match observed Ep very well, • wide international, scientific acceptance, • demand from agricultural and municipal users. • Drawbacks: • data requirements: • Uz data are noisy, • Rin data are seldom observed, • Lin data are almost never observed. • In their favor, CBRFC can calibrate parameters (e.g., ra, rs in Penman-Monteith) to close water balances of ~400 basins, accounting for spatial and temporal variations in land cover and vegetation type.

  19. Issues with temperature-based models: Decomposing Ep forcings – the PenPan model dEp/dt = -2.0 mm/yr2 dEp,Advective/dt = -2.6 mm/yr2 dEp,Radiative/dt = +0.6 mm/yr2 dVPD/dt = -0.2 Pa/yr dEp,VPD/dt = 0.0 mm/yr2 dU2/dt = -0.01 m/sec/yr dEp,U2/dt = -2.7 mm/yr2 [Roderick et al. Geophysical Research Letters, 2007]

  20. Issues with temperature-based models • Concept: • T reflects both the advective and radiative drivers, particularly the net radiation balance. • Advantages: • convenience, • low data requirements: • T, Tmax,Tmin, cloud cover data widely available in time and space. • Drawbacks: • lack of rigorous physical underpinning: • Ep not well characterized by T alone, • ignore the advective portion but Uz, specifically shown to drive most of the long-term variability in Epan, • Tdew more influential on temporal variability of VPD than is T. • Shuttleworth [1992] recommends against T-based formulations other than the Blaney-Criddle and Hargreaves equations, and never at sub-monthly resolutions.

  21. Issues with temperature-based models: BuRec study of Runoff under warming • Runoff sensitivity with Hamon Ep adjustment compared to base Ep • Gunnison: ~2 to 2.5x greater • Upper Missouri: ~4x greater [Brekke, Bureau of Reclamation, 2009]

  22. Option: direct estimation of ET by Penman-Monteith: Stomatal resistance, rs rs(t) = f(UZTW(t-1), LZTW(t-1))

  23. Option: direct estimation of ET by Penman-Monteith: Aerodynamic resistance, ra NLCD cover types ra = f(NLCD, season)

More Related