Transcript
Page 1: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Prism Climate GroupOregon State University

Christopher DalyDirector

Based on presentation developed Dr. Daly“Geospatial Climatology” as an emerging discipline

Page 2: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Leveraging Information Content of High-Quality Climatologies to Create New Maps with Fewer Data and Less Effort

Climatology knowledge used to convert a DEM into a PRISM predictor grid tomore accurately represent climate variables using weather station data.

Page 3: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Products

• Monthly and Annual (yearly and averages)– Precipitation

–Maximum Temperature

–Minimum Temperature

– Dewpoint Temperature

–% Annual Precipitation (by month)

• 2.5 arcmin (4 km) raster

• United States by state.

Page 4: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Basic Process• Y = a + b X , where X is elevation • Moving Window Regression• Local Interpolation using regression

• Spatial climate knowledge-base is used to weight stations in the regression function by their physiographic similarity to the target grid cell.

• The best method may be a statistical approach that is automated, but developed, guided and evaluated with expert knowledge.

Page 5: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

1. Elevation Influence on Climate 3D Representation

Page 6: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

2. Weighting the Weather Stations

Knowledge-based Technology

• Improving the results by applying our knowledge on the climate process.

• Each station is assign a weight in estimating the climate variable at a grid cell location.

• Designed to minimize the effects of factors other than elevation on the regression prediction.

• Weights are based on:– Distance– Elevation – Clustering– Topographic Facet (orientation)– Coastal Proximity– Vertical Layer (inversion)– Topographic Index (cold air

pooling)– Effective Terrain Height

(orographic profile)

Page 7: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Weights

• Distance – inverse Euclidean distance, more weight for closer stations

– Similar to Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation

• Elevation – more weights for stations with the same elevation.

• Cluster – will down-weight individual stations that are “clustered” together so as to not over-sample a given location

Page 8: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Terrain-Induced Climate Transitions (topographic facets, moisture index)

• Stations on the same side of a terrain feature as the target grid cell are weighted more highly than others.

• Orthographic effects on precipitation.

Page 9: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Page 10: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Rain Shadow: 1961-90 Mean Annual PrecipitationOregon Cascades

Portland

Eugene

Sisters

Redmond

Bend

Mt. Hood

Mt. Jefferson

Three Sisters

N

350 mm/yr

2200 mm/yr

2500 mm/yr

Dominant PRISM KBSComponents

Elevation

Terrain orientation

Terrain steepness

Moisture Regime

Page 11: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Page 12: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

1961-90 Mean Annual Precipitation, Cascade Mtns, OR, USA

Page 13: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

1961-90 Mean Annual Precipitation, Cascade Mtns, OR, USA

Page 14: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA

FlowDirection

Page 15: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Topographic Facets

= 4 km

= 60 km

Page 16: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Oregon Annual Precipitation

Full Model3452 mm

3442 mm

4042 mm

Max ~ 7900 mm

Max ~ 6800 mm

Mean Annual Precipitation, 1961-90

Page 17: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Facet Weighting Disabled

Max ~ 4800 mm

3452 mm

3442 mm

4042 mm

Mean Annual Precipitation, 1961-90

The 7900-mm precipitation maximum has “collapsed” under the weight of the more numerous and nearby dry-side stations

Page 18: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Oregon Annual Precipitation

Elevation = 0

Max ~ 3300 mm

3452 mm

3442 mm

4042 mm

Mean Annual Precipitation, 1961-90

Vertical extrapolation above the highest stations is “turned off”, leaving us with a map that is similar to that produced by an inverse-distance weighting interpolation algorithm

Page 19: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Coastal Effect

• Coastal Cooling – a band near the coast.• Coastal proximity is estimated with the PRISM

coastal influence trajectory model, which performs a cost-benefit path analysis to find the optimum path marine air might take, given prevailing winds and terrain.

• Penalties are assessed for moving uphill, and for the length of the path, requiring the optimal path to be a compromise between the shortest path, and path of least terrain resistance.

Page 20: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Coastal Effects: 1971-00 July Maximum Temperature

Central California Coast – 1 km

Monterey

San Francisco

San Jose

Santa Cruz

Hollister

Salinas

Stockton

Sacramento

Pacifi

c Oce

an

Fremont

N

PreferredTrajectories

DominantPRISM KBS Components

Elevation

Coastal Proximity

Inversion Layer

34°

20° 27°

Oakland

Page 21: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Two-Layer Atmosphere and Topographic Index

• Temperature Inversions are common in mountains especially during the winter

• Temperatures in the boundary layer are partly or totally decoupled from the free atmosphere.

• Based on an a priori estimation of the inversion top, PRISM divides the atmosphere into two layers, and performs the elevation regressions on each layer separately, allowing for a certain amount of crosstalk between layers near the inversion top.

• This allows temperature profiles with sharp changes in slope due to atmospheric layering to be simulated.

Page 22: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

TMAX-Elevation Plot for January

TMIN-Elevation Plot for January

1971-2000 January Temperature, HJ Andrews Forest, Oregon, USA

Layer 1 Layer 2

Layer 1 Layer 2

Page 23: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

United States Potential Winter Inversion

Page 24: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Western US Topographic Index

Another factor that influence’s a site’s temperature regime is its susceptibility to cold air pooling.

A useful way to assess this is to determine a site’s vertical position relative to local topographic features, such as valley bottom, mid slope, or ridge top.

A “topographic index” grid was created, which describes the height of a pixel relative to the surrounding terrain height.

PRISM uses this information to further weight stations during temperature interpolation.

Page 25: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Central Colorado Terrain and Topographic Index

Terrain Topographic Index

Gunnison Gunnison

Page 26: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

January Minimum

Temperature Central

Colorado

Gunnison

Gunnison

Valley BottomElev = 2316 mBelow InversionLapse = 5.3°C/kmT = -16.2°C

Page 27: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

January Minimum

Temperature Central

Colorado

Gunnison

Mid-SlopeElev = 2921 mAbove InversionLapse = 6.9°C/kmT = -12.7°C

Page 28: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

January Minimum

Temperature Central

Colorado

Gunnison

Ridge TopElev = 3779 mAbove InversionLapse = 6.0°C/kmT = -17.9°C

Page 29: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

PRISM Overview 5-8-08

Inversions – 1971-00 January Minimum TemperatureCentral Colorado

DominantPRISM KBS Components

Elevation

Topographic Index

Inversion LayerGunnison

Lake City

Crested ButteTaylor Park Res.

-18°C-13°

-18°

N

Page 30: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Orographic Effectiveness of Terrain (Profile)

• 3D vs 2D interpolation – does the terrain have an impact on precipitation.

Page 31: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University
Page 32: Prism Climate Group Oregon State University

Comments

• Based on my Arizona experience.

• Provides good representation for temperature.

• Provides good representation for precipitation where frontal events (warm or cold) are the dominate precipitation type. Good in winter in AZ.

• Provides poorer spatial representation of a single year when convective events dominate (i.e. monsoon), although long-term averages are OK.


Top Related