* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download What are the “grand challenges” in hydrology?
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Some thoughts on predicting hydrologic futures: The role of model sensitivity Dennis P. Lettenmaier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Berkekey Catchment Science Symposium 2008 UC Berkeley December 14, 2008 Outline of this talk • The role of hydrology in Earth system science • What are the grand challenges in hydrology? • Understanding hydrologic change examples: – Land cover and land use change – Climate change – Water management • Do we have a framework for evaluating our ability to predict change? The role of hydrology in Earth system science “Where is the water, where is it going and coming from and at what rate, and what controls its movement and that of the constituents that move with it?” What are the “grand challenges” in hydrology? • From Science (2006) 125th Anniversary issue (of eight in Environmental Sciences): Hydrologic forecasting – floods, droughts, and contamination • From the CUAHSI Science and Implementation Plan (2007): … a more comprehensive and … systematic understanding of continental water dynamics … • From the USGCRP Water Cycle Study Group, 2001 (Hornberger Report): [understanding] the causes of water cycle variations on global and regional scales, to what extent [they] are predictable, [and] how … water and nutrient cycles [are] linked? Important problems all, but I will argue instead (in addition) that understanding hydrologic change should rise to the level of a grand challenge to the community. Basic premise • Humans have greatly affected the land surface water cycle through – Land cover change – Climate change – Water management • While climate change has received the most attention, other change agents may well be more significant Landslides in Stillman Creek Drainage, upper Chehalis River Basin, WA, December, 2007 Visual courtesy Steve Ringman, The Seattle Times 1. Hydrologic effects of land use and land cover change Background: Cropland expansion Percentage of global land area: 3 14 Ramankutty and Foley, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 1999 Clearcutting in the Pacfic Northwest Visuals from Osborne (2001) and Sightline Institute How well do we predict the hydrologic signature of land cover change? Source: Van Shaar et al, Hydrological Processes, 2002 Source: Van Shaar et al, Hydrological Processes, 2002 Source: Van Shaar et al, Hydrological Processes, 2002 2. Hydrologic sensitivity to climate change The role of changing climate, 1950-2000 source: Mote et al (2005) Tmin at selected Puget Sound basin stations, 1916-2003 Tmax at selected Puget Sound basin stations, 1916-2003 from Seager et al, Science, 2007 Postmortem: Christensen and Lettenmaier (HESSD, 2007) – multimodel ensemble analysis with 11 IPCC AR4 models (downscaled as in C&L, 2004) Magnitude and Consistency of Model-Projected Changes in Annual Runoff by Water Resources Region, 2041-2060 Median change in annual runoff from 24 numerical experiments (color scale) and fraction of 24 experiments producing common direction of change (inset numerical values 58% +10% 67% 62% 71% 58% 96% 62% 62% 87% -2% 75% 100% +2% 67% 67% 67% -5% -10% -25% (After Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, A.V. Vecchia, Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate, Nature, 438, 347-350, 2005.) Decrease 87% +5% Increase +25% Dooge (1992; 1999): where ΨP is elasticity of runoff with respect to precipitation For temperature, it’s more convenient to think in terms of sensitivity (v. elasticity) Inferred runoff elasticities wrt precipitation for major Colorado River tributaries, using method of Sankarasubramanian and Vogel (2001) Visual courtesy Hugo Hidalgo, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Summary of precipitation elasticities and temperatures sensitivities for Colorado River at Lees Ferry for VIC, NOAH, and SAC models Model Precipitation TempTemp-Elasticity sensitivity sensitivity ( (Tmin & Tmax) %/ Tmax ) %/ 0C 0C Flow @ Lees Ferry (MACF) VIC 1.9 -2.2 -3.3 15.43 NOAH 1.81 -2.85 -3.93 17.43 SAC 1.77 -2.65 -4.10 15.76 ~9 ? Hoerling ~2 VIC Precipitation elasticity histograms, all grid cells and 25% of grid cells producing most (~73%) of runoff Spatial distribution of precipitation elasticities Censored spatial distribution of annual runoff Composite seasonal water cycle, by quartile of the runoff elasticity distribution Temperature sensitivity (Tmin fixed) histograms, all grid cells and 25% of grid cells producing most (~73%) of runoff Censored spatial distribution of annual runoff Spatial distribution of temperature sensitivities (Tmin fixed) Composite seasonal water cycle, by quartile of the temperature sensitivity (fixed Tmin) distribution Temperature sensitivity (equal change in Tmin and Tmax) histograms, all grid cells and 25% of grid cells producing most (~73%) of runoff Censored spatial distribution of annual runoff Spatial distribution of temperature sensitivities (equal changes in Tmin and Tmax) Composite seasonal water cycle, by quartile of the temperature sensitivity (equal change in Tmin and Tmax) distribution 3. Hydrologic effects of water management structures Global Reservoir Database Location (lat./lon.), Storage capacity, Area of water surface, Purpose of dam, Year of construction, … 13,382dams, Visual courtesy of Kuni Takeuchi Global Water System Project IGBP – IHDP – WCRP - Diversitas Human modification of hydrological systems Columbia River at the Dalles, OR Historic Naturalized Flow Estimated Range of Naturalized Flow With 2040’s Warming Regulated Flow Figure 1: mean seasonal hydrographs of the Columbia River prior to (blue) and after the completion of reservoirs that now have storage capacity equal to about one-third of the river’s mean annual flow (red), and the projected range of impacts on naturalized flows predicted to result from a range of global warming scenarios over the next century. Climate change scenarios IPCC Data and Distribution Center, hydrologic simulations courtesy of A. Hamlet, University of Washington. What protocols do we have to evaluate our ability to predict hydrologic change? Klemes (Hyd Sci. J., 1986) argues for testing based on a) split sample (SS), at the same site b) Differential split sample (DSS), where model is calibrated to “pre” condition (e.g., pre-cutting), appropriate model characteristics (e.g., change in LAI) are adjusted, and model predictions are tested against “post” data c) Proxy basin test (PB), where model is transferred from one basin, and applied to the PB without direct calibation there (but using parameter transfer algorithms that may include other basins) d) Proxy basin differential split sample (PC-DSS), transfer from one (or more) basins and from pre to post period. Refsgaard and Knudsen (WRR, 1996) apply this construct Some challenges The framework is a bit specific to streamflow prediction (and calibration protocols, etc.) Signal to noise issues often preclude evaluation of model performance over the relatively short time periods for which data (especially DSS variations) exist, yet modest long-term changes can have substantial practical effects (e.g., the Lake Mead example) Data problems (especially the case in the DSS variants), and confounding of nonstationarity with the SS protocol (can be addressed by sample design variations, e.g., “shuffled deck” rather than split sample Where good DSS data sets are available (e.g., H.J. Andrews), there often is a mismatch in spatial scale, and the magnitude of the disturbance signature Opportunistic DSS data sets often don’t include observations of key variables, observation periods too short, etc (e.g., Entiat Experimental Basins) Conclusions •We need to understand hydrologic sensitivities – to vegetation and climate change – better. There is a compelling motivation to do so both both on a scientific basis, and to address societal needs. •The uncertainties in predicting sensitivities to processes driven by temperature and/or evaporative demand changes seem to be greater than those related to precipitation change, even though in the climate world, prediction of precipitaiton change is generally considered more difficult than temperature •Although some hydrological consequences of water management are essentially deterministic, others are not, and we do not have a unified approach to addressing these issues – the history is much more one of case studies. Until and unless this can be done, development of unified approaches to predicting hydrologic change associated with water management will be impeded.