sensitivity analysis of the land surface model noah-mp for ... · sensitivity analysis of the land...

1
Sensitivity Analysis of the Land Surface Model Noah-MP for Different Output Fluxes in 12 Distinct Catchments J. Mai 1 , S. Thober 1 , L. Samaniego 1 , O. Branch 2 , V. Wulfmeyer 2 , M. Clark 3 , S. Attinger 1 , R. Kumar 1 , and M. Cuntz 1 1 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany, ([email protected]) 2 University of Hohenheim Stuttgart, Germany, 3 National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Boulder, CO 1. Motivation Land Surface Models (LSMs) use a plenitude of process descriptions to rep- resent the carbon, energy and water cycles. They are highly complex and computationally expensive. Practitioners, however, are often only interested in specific parts of the model such as latent heat or surface runoff. In model applications like parameter estimation, the most important parameters are then chosen by experience or expert knowledge. Hydrologists interested in surface runoff therefore choose mostly soil parameters while biogeochemists focus on carbon fluxes and hence on vegetation parameters. However, this might neglect parameters that are important, for example, through strong interactions with the parameters chosen. Additionally, supposedly unimpor- tant parameters are often fixed (i.e., hard-coded) during model development. However, these might be highly relevant during model calibration but remain normally undetected. Noah-MP is applied in 12 MOPEX catchments. Metero- logical forcings are obtained from NLDAS-2 and static data from LDAS. The spatial reso- lution is 0.125 and the simu- lation period is from 1979 to 1999 with the first years as spin-up. Additional catchment characteristics are given in the following table. Mean Mean Runoff Mean Mean Winter Dominant No Name Rainfall Runoff Coefficient Snow Temperature Land Cover [mm] [mm] [-] [mm] [ C] [-] 1 Tygart Valley River 1198 735 0.61 1901 -0.3 Dec BdLf For 2 French Broad 1413 800 0.56 902 3.6 Mixed Forest 3 Monocacy River 1050 420 0.40 1737 1.3 Dec BdLf For 4 Bluestone River 1036 416 0.40 798 2.0 Dec BdLf For 5 Amite River 1563 609 0.38 25 11.2 Evg NdLf For 6 East Fork White River 1013 377 0.37 679 -0.5 Grassland 7 Rappahannock River 1037 377 0.36 733 3.0 Mixed Forest 8 South Branch Pot. 1055 341 0.32 2582 0.3 Dec BdLf For 9 English River 900 269 0.29 1776 -2.9 Grassland 10 Spring River 1075 298 0.27 377 3.0 Dec BdLf For 11 San Marcos River 825 179 0.21 4 11.2 Grassland 12 Guadalupe 763 116 0.15 7 10.1 Veg Mosaic 2. Study Area The code was scanned for hard-coded values that are termed hidden parameters. 146 such numbers were found in all processes of Noah-MP but independent of vegetation or soil type. These parameters are in addition to the 93 standard parameters of Noah-MP. 38 standard and 80 hidden parameters remained in the analysis when the specific options of Noah-MP were chosen. Informative parameters were screened for different model outputs [1] : surface runoff, underground runoff, latent heat, and transpiration. Sobol’ sensitivity analyses were performed on the parameters identified. Per basin and output flux on average 1,300 model runs for the screening and 75,000 model runs for the Sobol’ analysis were required. p 1 p 2 p 3 3. Methods Informative parameters depend more on model output than on catchment characteristics On average 29% of in total 118 parameters are informative On average 38% of informative parameters are hidden Snow parameters are highlighted in surface runoff Parameters for vegetation, i.e. plant-soil interface, structure and physiology, are highlighted in latent heat 4. Parameter Screening 8 South Branch Potomac 12 Guadalupe 9 English River Underground Runoff Surface Runoff Latent Heat Transpiration Few informative parameters show high sensitivity Large number of snow parameters impor- tant in snowy catchments and these are all hidden Runoff in snowy catchments sensitive to hidden separation of rain and snow Saturated hydraulic conductivity very im- portant for runoff processes Influence of vegetation parameters de- pends on land cover type Sensitivities of underground runoff are more similar to those of latent heat than to those of surface runoff Sensitivities of latent heat dominated by evaporation processes Hidden parameter in formulation of sur- face resistance for evaporation is over- sensitive, similar to findings for CLM v3.5 [2] 5. Sensitivity Analysis [1] M. Cuntz, J. Mai et al., “Computationally inexpensive identification of non-informative model parameters by sequential screening,” Jan 2015, submitted to WRR. [2] M. G¨ ohler, J. Mai, and M. Cuntz, “Use of eigendecomposition in a parameter sensitivity analysis of the Community Land Model,” JGR, vol. 118, pp. 904–921, 2013.

Upload: others

Post on 21-Apr-2020

10 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sensitivity Analysis of the Land Surface Model Noah-MP for ... · Sensitivity Analysis of the Land Surface Model Noah-MP for Di erent Output Fluxes in 12 Distinct Catchments J. Mai

UFZ -CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LEIPZIG-HALLE

Sensitivity Analysis of the Land Surface Model Noah-MP for Different Output Fluxes in 12 Distinct CatchmentsJ. Mai 1, S. Thober 1, L. Samaniego 1, O. Branch 2, V. Wulfmeyer 2, M. Clark 3, S. Attinger 1, R. Kumar 1, and M. Cuntz 1

1 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany, ([email protected]) 2 University of Hohenheim Stuttgart, Germany, 3 National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Boulder, CO

1. Motivation

Land Surface Models (LSMs) use a plenitude of process descriptions to rep-resent the carbon, energy and water cycles. They are highly complex andcomputationally expensive. Practitioners, however, are often only interestedin specific parts of the model such as latent heat or surface runoff. In modelapplications like parameter estimation, the most important parameters arethen chosen by experience or expert knowledge. Hydrologists interested insurface runoff therefore choose mostly soil parameters while biogeochemistsfocus on carbon fluxes and hence on vegetation parameters. However, thismight neglect parameters that are important, for example, through stronginteractions with the parameters chosen. Additionally, supposedly unimpor-tant parameters are often fixed (i.e., hard-coded) during model development.However, these might be highly relevant during model calibration but remainnormally undetected.

Noah-MP is applied in 12MOPEX catchments. Metero-logical forcings are obtainedfrom NLDAS-2 and static datafrom LDAS. The spatial reso-lution is 0.125◦ and the simu-lation period is from 1979 to1999 with the first years asspin-up. Additional catchmentcharacteristics are given in thefollowing table.

100 ◦ W 95 ◦ W 90 ◦ W 85 ◦ W 80 ◦ W 75 ◦ W

30◦N

35◦N

40◦N

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

1112

Mean Mean Runoff Mean Mean Winter DominantNo Name Rainfall Runoff Coefficient Snow Temperature Land Cover

[mm] [mm] [-] [mm] [◦C] [-]1 Tygart Valley River 1198 735 0.61 1901 -0.3 Dec BdLf For2 French Broad 1413 800 0.56 902 3.6 Mixed Forest3 Monocacy River 1050 420 0.40 1737 1.3 Dec BdLf For4 Bluestone River 1036 416 0.40 798 2.0 Dec BdLf For5 Amite River 1563 609 0.38 25 11.2 Evg NdLf For6 East Fork White River 1013 377 0.37 679 -0.5 Grassland7 Rappahannock River 1037 377 0.36 733 3.0 Mixed Forest8 South Branch Pot. 1055 341 0.32 2582 0.3 Dec BdLf For9 English River 900 269 0.29 1776 -2.9 Grassland

10 Spring River 1075 298 0.27 377 3.0 Dec BdLf For11 San Marcos River 825 179 0.21 4 11.2 Grassland12 Guadalupe 763 116 0.15 7 10.1 Veg Mosaic

2. Study Area

The code was scanned for hard-coded values that are termed hidden parameters. 146 such numbers were found in all processes ofNoah-MP but independent of vegetation or soil type. These parameters are in addition to the 93 standard parameters of Noah-MP.38 standard and 80 hidden parameters remained in the analysis when the specific options of Noah-MP were chosen. Informativeparameters were screened for different model outputs[1]: surface runoff, underground runoff, latent heat, and transpiration. Sobol’sensitivity analyses were performed on the parameters identified. Per basin and output flux on average 1,300 model runs for thescreening and 75,000 model runs for the Sobol’ analysis were required. p1

p2

p3

3. Methods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112

RH

OL

01

RH

OS 0

2TA

UL

03

TA

US 0

4X

L 0

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112

REFS

MC

06

WLT

SM

C 0

7N

RO

OT 0

8C

H2

OP 0

9D

LEA

F 1

0Z

0M

VT 1

1H

VT 1

2H

VB

13

RC

14

CW

PV

T 1

5SA

IM 1

6LA

IM 1

7A

KC

18

AK

O 1

9A

VC

MX

20

VC

MX

25

21

BP 2

2M

P 2

3Q

E2

5 2

4FO

LNM

X 2

5B

B 2

6M

AX

SM

C 2

7SA

TPSI 2

8SA

TD

K 2

9SA

TD

W 3

0FR

ZK

_DA

TA

31

SLO

PE_D

ATA

32

REFD

K_D

ATA

33

REFK

DT_D

ATA

34

ZB

OT_D

ATA

35

FQPR

EC

C 3

6M

QPR

EC

C 3

7FD

IRR

AD

38

FVIS

RA

D 3

9C

SN

OW

PR

EC

IP1

40

CSN

OW

PR

EC

IP2

41

CSN

OW

PR

EC

IP3

42

CTSN

OW

PR

EC

IP1

43

CTSN

OW

PR

EC

IP2

44

CTSN

OW

PR

EC

IP3

45

C2

STR

EA

MK

OPEN

46

C2

STR

EA

MC

HIL

1 4

7C

2STR

EA

MC

HIL

2 4

8C

2STR

EA

MC

HIL

3 4

9C

2STR

EA

MC

HIL

4 5

0Z

0SN

O 5

1K

RSU

RF1

52

CR

SU

RF2

53

CM

AX

LAIE

54

CSTA

BLE

ATM

2 5

5C

STA

BLE

ATM

3 5

6C

RB

OU

ND

LEA

F 5

7C

TIN

HIB

1 5

8C

TIN

HIB

2 5

9M

EX

P 6

0SN

OW

_IW

C 6

1C

BU

LKSN

OW

1 6

2C

BU

LKSN

OW

2 6

3C

BU

LKSN

OW

3 6

4C

BU

LKSN

OW

4 6

5C

WETC

AN

OPY 6

6C

SN

OW

CO

MPA

CTC

2 6

7C

SN

OW

CO

MPA

CTD

M 6

8C

SN

OW

CO

MPA

CTETA

0 6

9C

SN

OW

CO

MPA

CTC

6 7

0C

MIN

SN

OW

L1 7

1C

MIN

SN

OW

L2 7

2D

CM

AX

SN

OW

L1 7

3C

MA

XSN

OW

L2 7

4C

FIM

PER

MFR

OZ

EN

2 7

5SW

EM

X 7

6C

TK

SN

O1

77

CTK

SN

O2

78

CSN

OW

CLA

SSA

LB0

79

KSN

OW

CLA

SS 8

0C

SN

OW

CLA

SSFR

ESH

81

CR

AD

ALB

SA

T 8

2C

FSN

O 8

3C

ZPD

84

CG

RO

UN

DM

AX

INC

85

KG

RO

UN

DM

OIS

T 8

6

Radia

tion

Soil

Physi

o

Vegeta

tion

Str

uct

ure

Physi

olo

gy

Soil

Wate

r

Runoff

Input

Radia

tion

Tra

nsf

er

Physi

olo

gy

Snow

Wate

r

Snow

Energ

y

Soil

Energ

y

Late

nt

Heat

Catc

hm

ents

Surf

ace

Runoff

Catc

hm

ents

Standard Parameters Hidden Parameters

• Informative parameters depend more on model output thanon catchment characteristics

• On average 29% of in total 118 parameters are informative

• On average 38% of informative parameters are hidden

• Snow parameters are highlighted in surface runoff

• Parameters for vegetation, i.e. plant-soil interface, structureand physiology, are highlighted in latent heat

4. Parameter ScreeningRadiation

Physio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.8

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

8S

outhB

ranchP

otomac

RadiationPhysio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.8

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

12G

uadalupe

9E

nglishR

iver

RadiationPhysio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.8

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

Underground Runoff

RadiationPhysio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.8

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

Surface Runoff

RadiationPhysio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.4

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

Latent Heat

RadiationPhysio.

Soil

StructureVegetation

Physiology

Soil

Water

Runoff

Input*

Radiation*

Transfer*

Physio.*

Water*

Snow

Energ

y*Snow

Energy*

Soil

0

0.1

2 6

101418222630343

8424

650

545862667074

7882

86

Transpiration

• Few informative parameters show highsensitivity

• Large number of snow parameters impor-tant in snowy catchments and these areall hidden

• Runoff in snowy catchments sensitive tohidden separation of rain and snow

• Saturated hydraulic conductivity very im-portant for runoff processes

• Influence of vegetation parameters de-pends on land cover type

• Sensitivities of underground runoff aremore similar to those of latent heat thanto those of surface runoff

• Sensitivities of latent heat dominated byevaporation processes

• Hidden parameter in formulation of sur-face resistance for evaporation is over-sensitive, similar to findings for CLM v3.5[2]

5. Sensitivity Analysis

[1] M. Cuntz, J. Mai et al., “Computationally inexpensive identificationof non-informative model parameters by sequential screening,” Jan2015, submitted to WRR.

[2] M. Gohler, J. Mai, and M. Cuntz, “Use of eigendecomposition in aparameter sensitivity analysis of the Community Land Model,” JGR,vol. 118, pp. 904–921, 2013.