47
Airborne Snow Observatory and Distributed Hydrologic Modeling: Next Generation of Snowmelt Runoff and Operations Forecasting Thomas H. Painter, Ph.D. Scientist NASA - Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology MS 233-306D 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 Tel: (818) 393-8226 (office) (626) 319-3111 (mobile) Email: [email protected] Web: aso.jpl.nasa.gov snow.jpl.nasa.gov BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Thomas H. Painter, PhD, is a Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech and a research professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. His areas of interest are snow hydrology, radiative impacts of light-absorbing impurities on snow and glacier melt, multispectral remote sensing and imaging spectroscopy, and solar system astrobiology. He received the PhD and MA in Geography from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the B.S. in Mathematics from Colorado State University. He was an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Utah, and Research Scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union, the European Geosciences Union, International Glaciological Society, and Western Snow Conference. Dr. Painter is the President of the Cryosphere Focus Group of the American Geophysical Union and member of the AGU Eos Editorial Advisory Board. He is the Principal Investigator on the NASA/JPL Airborne Snow Observatory. ABSTRACT Snow cover and its melt dominate regional climate and water resources in many of the world’s mountainous regions. However, we face significant water resource challenges due to the intersection of increasing demand from population growth and changes in runoff total and timing due to climate change. Moreover, increasing temperatures in desert systems will increase dust loading to mountain snow cover, thus reducing the snow cover albedo and accelerating snowmelt runoff. The two most critical properties for understanding snowmelt runoff and timing are the spatial and temporal distributions of snow water equivalent (SWE) and snow albedo. Despite their importance in controlling volume and timing of runoff, snowpack albedo and SWE are still poorly quantified in the US and not at all in most of the globe, leaving runoff models poorly constrained. Recognizing this need, JPL developed the Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO), an imaging spectrometer and imaging LiDAR system, to quantify snow water equivalent and snow albedo, provide unprecedented knowledge of snow properties, and provide complete, robust inputs to snowmelt runoff models, water management models, and systems of the future. The ASO is being evaluated during a multi-year Demonstration Mission of weekly acquisitions in each of the Uncompahgre River Basin (Upper Colorado) and the Tuolumne River Basin (Sierra Nevada) beginning in spring 2013. The ASO data will be used to constrain spatially distributed models of varying complexities and integrated into the operations of the O’Shaughnessy Dam on the Hetch Hetchy reservoir on the Tuolumne River. Here we present the first results from the ASO Demonstration Mission.

Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Airborne Snow Observatory and Distributed Hydrologic Modeling: Next Generation of Snowmelt Runoff and Operations Forecasting

Thomas H. Painter, Ph.D. Scientist NASA - Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology MS 233-306D 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109

Tel: (818) 393-8226 (office) (626) 319-3111 (mobile) Email: [email protected] Web: aso.jpl.nasa.gov snow.jpl.nasa.gov

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Thomas H. Painter, PhD, is a Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech and a research professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. His areas of interest are snow hydrology, radiative impacts of light-absorbing impurities on snow and glacier melt, multispectral remote sensing and imaging spectroscopy, and solar system astrobiology. He received the PhD and MA in Geography from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the B.S. in Mathematics from Colorado State University. He was an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Utah, and Research Scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union, the European Geosciences Union, International Glaciological Society, and Western Snow Conference. Dr. Painter is the President of the Cryosphere Focus Group of the American Geophysical Union and member of the AGU Eos Editorial Advisory Board. He is the Principal Investigator on the NASA/JPL Airborne Snow Observatory.

ABSTRACT Snow cover and its melt dominate regional climate and water resources in many of the world’s mountainous regions. However, we face significant water resource challenges due to the intersection of increasing demand from population growth and changes in runoff total and timing due to climate change. Moreover, increasing temperatures in desert systems will increase dust loading to mountain snow cover, thus reducing the snow cover albedo and accelerating snowmelt runoff. The two most critical properties for understanding snowmelt runoff and timing are the spatial and temporal distributions of snow water equivalent (SWE) and snow albedo. Despite their importance in controlling volume and timing of runoff, snowpack albedo and SWE are still poorly quantified in the US and not at all in most of the globe, leaving runoff models poorly constrained. Recognizing this need, JPL developed the Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO), an imaging spectrometer and imaging LiDAR system, to quantify snow water equivalent and snow albedo, provide unprecedented knowledge of snow properties, and provide complete, robust inputs to snowmelt runoff models, water management models, and systems of the future. The ASO is being evaluated during a multi-year Demonstration Mission of weekly acquisitions in each of the Uncompahgre River Basin (Upper Colorado) and the Tuolumne River Basin (Sierra Nevada) beginning in spring 2013. The ASO data will be used to constrain spatially distributed models of varying complexities and integrated into the operations of the O’Shaughnessy Dam on the Hetch Hetchy reservoir on the Tuolumne River. Here we present the first results from the ASO Demonstration Mission.

Page 2: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

JPL Airborne Snow Observatory

Imaging snow water equivalent and snow albedo Principal Investigator: Thomas H. Painter, JPL/Caltech

Page 3: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Outline

Why the Airborne Snow Observatory?

What is the Airborne Snow Observatory?

How has it worked in practice?

Results from Demonstration Mission 1 (ASO-DM1)

When can we get the Airborne Snow Observatory to do all that we want?

Page 4: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Why ASO?

Page 5: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Snow gives most of the water

But there is a lot more to it

Page 6: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Elk Range, Colorado River Basin, April 2009

Senator Beck Basin, CO; Tmax 13-15 °C

Morteratschgletscher (Oerlemans, 2000)

What controls snowmelt?

Page 7: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

New insight from obsUncompahgre River,

ColoradoUpper Colorado River Basin

Ordinate

Senator Beck Basin Study Area San Juan Mtns

Upper Colorado River BasinAbscissa Painter et al (in preparation)

Funding: NASA Interdisciplinary Science

Runoff rate vs Dust Absorption2005-2010

Runoff rate vs Temperature2005-2010

Page 8: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Forecasting

Dozier 2012

Page 9: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 10: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Snow Covered Area

MODSCAG 3 April 2002

Page 11: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Pillows and snow courses cover ~0.000000025 of the Tuolumne basin… or one forty millionth of the basin

Page 12: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Why not just satellites?!

They are definitely a part of the mix

However, they have fixed flight operations – so they cannot adjust to cloud cover or fly upon demand

Those with the frequency needed cannot provide the spatial resolution needed

THEY DO NOT GIVE US SWE!

Page 13: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Snow Water

Equivalent

Albedo

Page 14: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

What is ASO?

Page 15: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Imaging Spectrometer0.35-1.05 μm

2 m spatial resolution from 4000 AGL

3D Scanning LiDAR1064 nm

1 m spatial resolution

Albedo

SWE

Uncertainty < 2%

Uncertainty < 5 cm

Page 16: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

How does ASO work in practice?

Page 17: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 18: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Flight lines LiDAR composite

Point density

Page 19: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Tuolumne River Basin, Snow Density simulationiSNOBAL model, 3 April 2013

Page 20: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Mosaic of spectrometer

Spectrometer mosaic

3 May 2013

Page 21: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Imaging Spectrometer Products

Page 22: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

ASO Results

Page 23: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

TUOLUMNE BASIN

weekly

UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN

weekly

Page 24: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Snow Water Equivalent

(m)

SWETuolumne River Basin21 April 2013

Page 25: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Albedo

AlbedoTuolumne River Basin21 April 2013

Page 26: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Mt. Lyell Topographic

Page 27: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Mt Lyell (natural color)

Imaging spectrometer data draped on snow-on digital elevation surface.Seam expresses need for tomorrow’s update to lidar spatial calibration and spectrometer camera model.

2 April, 2013

Page 28: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Mt Lyell (SWE)

Page 29: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Results

Page 30: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 31: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 32: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 33: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 34: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 35: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 36: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 37: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the
Page 38: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

ASO Results –

SWE

Tuolumne

Basin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days

Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF

Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the difference

Melt rates varied based on solar input

Page 39: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Uncompahgre River Basin (above Ridgway Reservoir)

19 April 2013

Page 40: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Uncompahgre River Basin (above Ridgway Reservoir)

17 May 2013

Page 41: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Uncompahgre River Basin (above Ridgway Reservoir)

17 May 2013

Page 42: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Uncompahgre River Basin (above Ridgway Reservoir)

17 May 2013

Page 43: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Uncompahgre River Basin (above Ridgway Reservoir)

17 May 2013

Page 44: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

All of this in < 24 hrsThe core of ASO is the supercomputing data analysis

Page 45: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Hydro Modeling Results

Tuolumne

Precipitation and temperature were forecasted from 6/1

Simulated and observed inflow are similar from 5/15 through 6/1, the forecast point

Modeled SWE (red) corrected by ASO SWE (blue)

Page 46: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

Observed inflow much less than initial prediction

ASO-based forecast closer to observed

Reservoir operations were adjusted (draft reduced) after ASO forecast, HH reached the top of the gates, was full, and no water was lost to spill

Hydro Modeling Results

Tuolumne

Page 47: Airborne Snow Observatory - CEPSYMBasin SWE declined from 218 to 42 TAF in 59 days Inflow was 289 TAF, while melt was 203 TAF Recharge, ET, and transient storage accounted for the

What is next for ASO?We are working through the last technical

details of scaling to cover the Sierra Nevada and Upper Colorado River Basin

in a timely mannerWe are working partnerships with the

State of California, Colorado River Basin States, Department of Interior