1 / 29

Urbanization impacts on the hydrometeorology in the Upper Great Lakes Region

Urbanization impacts on the hydrometeorology in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Some brief results for the overview paper. General picture.

teness
Télécharger la présentation

Urbanization impacts on the hydrometeorology in the Upper Great Lakes Region

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. Urbanization impacts on the hydrometeorology in the Upper Great Lakes Region Some brief results for the overview paper

  2. General picture • Study the relative impact of infiltration changes (urban land cover increase) and weather change (convective precipitation) on hydrologic response in the Upper Great Lakes Region. • Three Land Use/ Land Cover maps used: projected year 2010 map from LTM, projected year 2030 map from LTM, and no urban map, created by removing urban and rescaling other veg fractions in 2010 map. • The RAMS model simulates the meteorological conditions (precipitation and temperature) corresponding to the three land cover maps during the storm event (6/21/2006 ~ 6/23/2006) • The VIC model simulates the runoff (discharge) production from different land cover and weather scenarios

  3. Impervious surface area (ISA) percentage at 12 km grid scale for two land cover maps and their difference

  4. RAMS precipitation (prec) spatial map

  5. 2010 -> 2030 changes are opposite to no urban -> 2010.

  6. Prec ratio vs. ISA fp_nourb vs. 2010 ISA percentage fp_2030 vs. (2030-2010) ISA percentage No relationship between prec ratio and ISA fraction for all grids; Largest precipitation changes do not necessarily occur in cells with higher impervious area or highest change in impervious area

  7. RAMS temperature (temp) spatial map

  8. RAMS temperature (temp) spatial map 2010 -> 2030 changes are opposite to no urban -> 2010, but not as pronounced as precipitation

  9. Temp ratio vs. ISA ft_nourb vs. 2010 ISA percentage ft_2030 vs. (2030-2010) ISA percentage No relationship between temp ratio and ISA fraction for all grids; Largest temperature changes do not necessarily occur in cells with higher impervious area or highest change in impervious area

  10. Similar spatial plots but in the HUC8 watershed scale in the four states domain ISA fraction for LC 2010 RAMS prec for LC 2010

  11. prec ratio for 2010/no-urban prec ratio for 2030/2010

  12. Bias correction for prec and temp Bias correction for 2010 scenario: Tcorr2010 = Trams2010 + [Tvic(ave) – Trams2010(ave)] Pcorr2010 = Prams2010 * [Pvic(total) / Prams2010(total)] Bias correction for 2030 scenario: Tcorr2030 = Trams2030 + [Tvic(ave) - Trams2010(ave)] Pcorr2030 = Prams2030 * [Pvic(total) / Prams2010(total)] Bias correction for no-urban (nou) scenario: Tcorr_nou = Tnou + [Tvic(ave) - Trams2010(ave)] Pcorr_nou = Pnou * [Pvic(total) / Prams2010(total)]

  13. RAMS prec before/after correction, and observed prec

  14. RAMS temp before/after correction, and observed prec

  15. Five different scenarios for the VIC model simulation prec changes infiltration restriction • Test the impact of different factors on runoff • Vertical difference: impervious impact only (with same weather: prec and temp) • e.g. 2010nourb – nourbanall, 2030all - 2030 • Horizontal difference: weather impact only (with same LC) • e.g. 2010 - 2010nourb, 2030 - 2010nourb, 2030 - 2010 • Diagonal difference: both urban and weather impact • e.g. 2010 - nourbanall, 2030all - 2010

  16. Runoff spatial maps at grid scale (urban impact)

  17. Runoff vs. ISA Test the relationship between ISA fraction and increased runoff working on grids with ISA fraction >= 0.05 (less than 600 grids) • A. (2010nourb – nourball) vs. (ISA2010): R2 = 0.59 • 2010nourb - nourball: runoff difference was only caused by urban representation in 2010 LC (with same nourb weather) • B. (2030all - 2030) vs. ΔISA(2030LC-2010LC); R2 = 0.74 • 2030all - 2030: runoff difference was caused by urban representation in 2030 and 2010 LC maps (with same 2030 urban weather) A B

  18. Runoff ratio vs. ISA Runoff ratio:runoff/ precipitation working on grids with ISA fraction >= 0.05, and precipitation > 0 A. RO2010/P2010 vs. ISA2010: R2 = 0.98 RO2010: runoff from 2010 scenario (with 2010 urban and weather) B. RO2030all/P2030 vs. ISA2030: R2 = 0.99 RO2030all: runoff from 2030all scenario (with 2030 urban and weather) A B

  19. Runoff spatial maps at grid scale (prec impact) All three figures are based on same 2010 LC map

  20. Runoff spatial maps (both urban and prec impact) 2030urb impact 2010 urb and prec impact 2030 urb and prec impact

  21. Relative impact of urban (weather) on runoff Runoff (RO) spatial ratio maps at HUC8 scale (RO2010nou - ROnourb)/ (RO2010 - ROnourb) (RO2010nou - ROnourb)/ (RO2030 - ROnourb)

  22. 2030 weather vs. 2010 weather (RO2030 - ROnourb)/ (RO2010 - ROnourb) ISA fraction for LC 2010

  23. For the storm event during 6/21/2006 ~ 6/23/2006 Hydrograph for four delineated watersheds White Muskegon

  24. Hydrograph for White and Muskegon River • Overall, the bias corrected 2010nourban, 2010 and 2030 weather scenarios yield very similar discharge during the storm event (with same 2010 LC map). • The hydrograph shows a great increased discharge from no urban, 2010, to 2030 LC maps (with increasing urban fraction). • Means restricting infiltration rate has a dominating contribution to the increased discharge in the storm event, and the modified precipitation from different LC maps do not have much impact on the discharge.

  25. Grand Hydrograph for four delineated watersheds Kankakee

  26. Wind direction impact on prec (downwind vs. upwind) Four urban regions: Milwaukee, Muskegon + Grand, Chicago, White

  27. Wilcoxon rank-sum test: fp_nourb (prec ratio 2010/nourban), then fp_2030 (prec ratio 2030/2010) Wind direction impact on prec (downwind vs. upwind) 1. White River fp_nou (P2010/ P2010nou): downwind fp_nou is significantly larger than upwind at 0.01 significance level fp_2030 (P2030/P2010): opposite 2. Chicago fp_nou (P2010/ P2010nou): downwind fp_nou > upwind at 0.01 significance level fp_2030 (P2030/P2010): not significant 3. Milwa fp_nou (P2010/ P2010nou): downwind fp_nou > upwind at 0.05 significance level fp_2030 (P2030/P2010): opposite 4. Muskegon (+ Grand Rapids) All grids can be considered as the downwind group because of the two cities and the W (SW) wind direction from the lake. fp_nou > 1 at 0.01 significance level fp_2030 < 1 at 0.01 significance level

  28. VIC model calibration/validation Table 3. Monthly NSE for calibration and evaluation periods. Need other LC map or use short time period to do calibration/ evaluation?

  29. Thank you! Suggestions?

More Related