Upload
kory-hampton
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Weather Generator Methods
Dr Rob WilbyKing’s College London
“Probabilities direct the conduct of the wise man” (Cicero, Roman orator, 106-43BC)
“The only certainty is uncertainty” (Pliny the Elder, AD 23-79)
“As for me, all I know is I know nothing” (Socrates, 470-399 BC)
A few wise words
Source: Katz (2002)
Presentation outline• A brief history
• The “classic” weather generator approach
• Conditioning by atmospheric circulation patterns
• Weather generator applications
• Future directions
A brief history
Site(s) Observation Source
Brussels Wet and dry days tend to cluster Quetelet (1852)
Kew, Aberdeen,Greenwich, Valencia
Probability of a rain day is greater if theprevious day was wet
Newnham (1916);Besson (1924); Gold(1929); Cochran(1938)
Rothamstead, UK;five Canadian cities
Wet and dry spell lengths have a geometricdistribution
Williams (1952);Longley (1953)
Tel Aviv Use of Markov chain to reproduce geometricdistribution of wet and dry spell lengths
Gabriel andNeumann (1962)
? Combined Markov occurrence model withexponential distribution for rainfall amounts
Todorovic andWoolhiser (1975)
USA Generation of max/min temperature, andsolar radiation conditional on rain occurrence
Richardson (1981)
USA Multi-site generalization of daily stochasticprecipitation model
Bras and Rodriguez-Iturbe (1976)
Key publications in the development of daily weather generators
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986
Pre
cip
itatio
n (
ten
ths
mm
)
Distributions of daily wet (red) and dry (blue) spell lengths at Cambridge, UK 1961-1990 approximated by geometric distributions
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
1 10 100
Spell length (days)
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Distribution of daily wet day totals (tenths mm) at Cambridge, UK 1961-1990 approximated (poorly) by the exponential distribution
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 50 100 150 200 250
Precipitation (tenths mm)
Pro
ba
bili
ty
The “classic” approach
Precipitation occurrence process
Most weather generators contain separate treatments of the precipitation occurrence and intensity processes.
A first-order Markov chain for precipitation occurrence is fully defined by two conditional probabilities
p01 = Pr{precipitation on day t | no precipitation on day t-1}
and
p11 = Pr{precipitation on day t | precipitation on day t-1}
which are called transition probabilities.
Precipitation occurrence processes (cont.)
The transition probabilities for Cambridge, UK are as follows
dry-to-wet (p01) = 0.291
wet-to-wet (p11) = 0.654
Therefore it follows (for a two state model) that
dry-to-dry (p00) = 1 - p01 = 0.709
wet-to-dry (p10) = 1 - p11 = 0.346
This approach may be extended from a first-order to nth-order model by considering transitions that depend on states on days t-1, t-2…...t-n (as in Gregory et al., 1993).
Precipitation amount processes
Daily precipitation amounts are typically strongly skewed to the right.
The simplest reasonable model is the exponential distribution, as it requires specification of only one parameter, , and whose probability density function is:
μx
expμ1
f(x)
( ) [ ]( )αβΓ
βx-expβx=f(x)
1α-
The two-parameter gamma distribution is a popular choice, defined by the shape and scale parameter :
Most weather generators make the assumption that precipitation amounts on successive wet days are independent.
Precipitation amount processes (cont.)
Source: Wilks and Wilby (1999)
January precipitation at Ithaca, New York 1900-1998 represented by three pdfs:• exponential• gamma• mixed exponential
Inverse normal transformation
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Daily total (mm)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Z-score
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Daily total (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Dai
ly to
tal (
mm
)
[1] raw data
[3] cumulative pdf
[2] empirical pdf
[4] normal pdf
[5] z-scores
Other meteorological variables
Condition the statistics of the daily variables (typically maximum/ minimum temperatures and solar radiation) on occurrence of precipitation (a proxy for other processes such as cloud cover).
In the classic WGEN model, multiple variables are modelled simultaneously with auto-regression:
( ) [ ] ( ) [ ] ( )tε+1-t=t BzAz
Where z(t) are normally distributed values for today’s nonprecipitation variables, z(t-1) are corresponding values for the previous day, and [A] and [B] are K K matrices of parameters, and (t) is white-noise forcing.
Other meteorological variables (cont.)
The z(t) are transformed to weather variables dependent on rainfall occurrence:
( )( ) ( )
( ) ( )tztσ+μ
tztσ+μ{=tT
kk,1k,1
kk,0k,0
k
if day t is dry
if day t is wet
where each Tk is any of the nonprecipitation variables, k,0 and k,0 are its mean and standard deviation for dry days, and k,1 and k,1 are its mean and standard deviation for wet days.
Seasonal dependence of the means and standard deviations is usually achieved through Fourier harmonics (i.e., sine and cosines).
Daily weather generation (Markov chain)
Source: Wilks and Wilby (1999)
Daily weather generation (spell-lengths)
Source: Wilks and Wilby (1999)
Use of atmospheric patterns
Weather classification schemes may be used to condition daily meteorological variables such as the precipitation occurrence and intensity processes
Conditional probabilities of rainfall and mean intensity at Kempsford, Cotswolds associated with the main Lamb Weather Types (LWT), 1891-1910
Conditioning weather patterns may be derived from (a) observations; (b) climate model output; (c) stochastic representations of (a) or (b).
Conditioning stochastic properties of daily precipitation on indices of atmospheric circulation
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
25 35 45 55 65
Model SD (mm)
Obs
erve
d S
D (
mm
)
Unconditional Conditional
Standard deviation of monthly precipitation at Valentia for an unconditioned an induced SLP model (Kiely et al., 1998).
Conditioning variables:day of the week (!),month, season, year,geography,weather patterns,moisture indices,airflow/pressure indices,hidden states,NAOI and SOI, etc.
Multi-site daily weather
DET (winter)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Observed
SDSM
Observed and downscaled inter-site correlations for 12 stations in Eastern England
Estimates of Kendall’s τ for the 90th percentile 20–day winter maximum precipitation amounts across EE. Black lines represent observations; blue/red are model estimates.
• Repeat application of single-site methods (see example below)• Non-parametric (nearest neighbour, weather pattern) resampling• Spatially correlated random numbers• Fuzzy logic, neural networks
Applications
Generation of climate analogues
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
1971-90historic
abstraction
1893 zero
abstraction
1893historic
abstraction1872zero
abstraction
1872historic
abstraction
Ml/d
ay
Simulated 10-day annual minimum flow in the River Test under extreme cyclonic (1872) and anticyclonic (1893) weather patterns.
Temporal disaggregation - Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP)
• Daily Tmax/Tmin/PPT using modified Richardson (1981) approach;
• Parameterized using HCN/ Coop network and VEMAP 99-year monthly grid (0.5º);
• Separate parameters for wet and dry periods (Wilks)
• Quality check of frequency distributions/ extremes
• Not actual daily series
Source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/vemap/animations/index.html
.64
.65
.66
.67
.68
.69
.7
.71
.72
.73
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.66
.67
.68
.69
.7
.71
.72
.73
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.62
.64
.66
.68
.7
.72
.74
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.72
.725
.73
.735
.74
.745
.75
.755
.76
.765
.77
.775
.78
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.7
.71
.72
.73
.74
.75
.76
.77
.78
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.71
.72
.73
.74
.75
.76
.77
.78
.79
.8
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.66
.67
.68
.69
.7
.71
.72
.73
.74
.75
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.74
.745
.75
.755
.76
.765
.77
.775
.78
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.69.695
.7.705
.71.715
.72.725
.73.735
.74.745
.75.755
.76
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
.69
.7
.71
.72
.73
.74
.75
.76
.77
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pro
babi
lity
Bradford Cambridge
Durham Edgbaston
Edinburgh Hastings
Kew Nottingham
Oxford Plymouth
Detection of non-stationarity
Dry-spell persistence (p00) at selected sites in the UKSource: Wilby (2001)
Statistical downscaling
Changes in station-series means and variances will be proportional to changes in the respective area-average (GCM grid) moments:
( )[ ] ( )[ ]( )[ ]
down
GCMpresent
GCMfuturestation
down TπTSETSE
TSE=μ
Source: Wilks (1999)
where S(T) is the sum of T daily precipitation amounts, is the unconditional probability of precipitation, and is the mean wet-day amount.
Future directions
Sub-daily models
Three steps in weather generator:• Number of wet subperiods conditional on total daily amount;• Relative distribution of rainfall amounts per wet period;• Time series using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method.
Source: Bardossy (1997)
Hindcasts of summer dry–spell persistence (p00) at Cambridge, 1946–1995, from preceding winter SST anomalies.
65
60
55
50
45
40
Lat
itude
(ÞN
)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0
Longitude (ÞW)
0.18
0.16
0.14 0.12
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.06 0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00 -0.02 -0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
-0.10
-0.12 -0.14
-0.16 -0.18
EOF 2
Seasonal forecasting
Source: Wilby (2001)
Using winter North Atlantic SST anomalies to condition summer dry–spell persistence (p00).
Summary of weather generator characteristics
Strengths Weaknesses
Computationally undemandingthus enables generation of longtime-series and/or ensembles
May be extended to multisitegeneralizations
Simultaneous generation ofseveral meteorologicalvariables conditional onprecipitation occurrence
Applicable to climate analogues
Requires classification (at thevery least wet/dry-daydefinition)
Precipitation amounts highlysensitive to choice of probabilitydistribution function
Adjustment of parameters canhave unexpected effects onconditional variables
Assumes stationarity ofconditional relationships
Further readingCameron, D., Beven, K. and Tawn, J. 2000. An evaluation of three stochastic rainfall models.
Journal of Hydrology, 228, 130-149.Dessens,J., Fraile, R., Pont, V. and Sanchez, J.L. 2001. Day-of-the-week variability of hail in
southwestern France. Atmospheric Research, 59-60, 63-76.Gregory, J.M., Wigley, T.M.L. and Jones, P.D. 1993. Application of Markov models to area-
average daily precipitation series and interannual variability in seasonal totals. Climate Dynamics, 8, 299-310.
Katz, R.W. 2002. Techniques for estimating uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact studies. Climate Research, 20, 167-185.
Kiely, G., Albertson, J.D., Parlange, M.B. and Katz, R.W. 1998. Conditioning stochastic properties of daily precipitation on indices of atmospheric circulation. Meteorological Applications, 5, 75-87.
Kilsby,C.G., Cowpertwait, P.S.P., O’Connell, P.E., and Jones, P.D. 1998. Predicting rainfall statistics in England and Wales using atmospheric circulation variables. International Journal of Climatology, 18, 523-539.
Richardson, C.W. 1981. Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature and solar radiation. Water Resources Research 17,182-190.
Wilby, R.L. 2001. Downscaling summer rainfall in the UK from North Atlantic ocean temperatures. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences, 5, 245–257.
Wilks, D.S. and Wilby, R.L. 1999. The weather generation game: a review of stochastic weather models. Progress in Physical Geography, 23, 329-357.