Climate Change Impacts: The GCAM-CLM Coupling Experiment over the U.S. Midwest

Transcription

1 Climate Change Impacts: The GCAM-CLM Coupling Experiment over the U.S. Midwest Mohamad Hejazi Nathalie Voisin, Lu Liu, Teklu Tesfa, Hongyi Li, Maoyi Huang, Ruby Leung Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI) College Park, MD Thursday October 3, 2013

2 Climate Change Impacts on the Water System! Climate Change Impacts on: Streamflow and water availability Irrigation water demands by crops (yield, water use efficiency,!) Thermoelectric water demands Hydropower generation 2

3 IAM-ESM coupling Earth System Model GCAM!"#$%&'()"*+% &*,+-+% Key Challenges:! Consistency! Conservation of mass! Scale (temporal and spatial)! Transfer of information! Regional specificity Midwest 3

4 GCAM-CLM-MOSART-WM Coupling Earth System Model GCAM!"#$%&'()"*+% &*,+-+%!"#$%.##'"/%0"1+(% $+-"#$2%34% 2+*15(6%2'32+*15(6% 1+*,#5/5746%"#$% Climate SCALING Spatio-temporal (dis)aggregation by sectors &'33"2:#6%>?%-:#% &'88/4% +$% SCLM/MOSART/WM &"'$% ;+7'/"1+$% =50% ;'#5<% $(&#)*% 4

5 Land surface water cycle modeling A5--'#:14%!"#$%B5$+/%CA!BD%*5'8/+$%15%"%(5'9#7%-5$+/%CBE&.;FD %% G"1+(%;+25'(*+2%B"#"7+-+#1%B5$+/%*5'8/+$%15%BE&.;F! ",-./ /7% -/18,9:% Hillslope routing% Sub-network routing% BE&.;F% Main channel routing% A!B% GB% 5

6 Water Demands from GCAM HD%F05%&*+#"(:52% >D%J+#+("1+%(+7:5#K%"#$%2+*15(K28+*:L*%"##'"/%0"1+(% $+-"#$2%)5(%+"*,%JA.B%9-+%8+(:5$2% ID%;'#%JA.B% 6

7 Spatial Downscaling JA.B%;+7:5#2%.ST% O((:7"95#%!:M+215*N% P58'/"95#% Q50#2*"/+%JA.BR2% 0"1+(%$+-"#$2% ;+2'/12%15%7(:$%2*"/+%

8 Temporal Downscaling! Temporally downscale GCAM annual water demands to monthly estimates + validating the results against observations or some independent modeling data! Domestic! Energy! Manufacturing! Mining and productions! Livestock!"#$%&!!"#%&1)+&7.!8#$%&-!8#!(9:#%&&1!8#!;(<#%&& -!8#!;$=#%&&&'6()$#>% % %%,+"9#7% *55/:#7% '9/:9+2%!"#$%&!!"#%&".#$%&".#$#'!/00#$%&1234!/00#$%&&&(#$)'! 500#$%&1234!500#$%&&&(#$*"!)1)+&6(#$+,"!)1)+&6%% 3':/$:#72% O#$'21(4%"#$%% 1("#285(1"95#%%!"#$%&!! "#%&1)+&%%!"#$%&!! "#%&1)+&%%!"#$%&!! "#%&1)+&%%! Irrigation!"#$%&!!"#%&"!'()$*#! +,-#$%&&%

9 Spatial and temporal downscaling of GCAM s water demands V"#% U+3% B"(%.8(% B"4% V'#% V'/%.'7% &+8% E*1% W5M%Q+*% 9

10 Reservoirs and water use in the study region Missouri (194): Irrigation (125) Irrigation and Flood Control (29) Other uses (40) Upper Mississippi (220): Irrigation (0) Flood Control (25) Other uses (195) The reservoir database by type of operating rules% Ohio (131): Irrigation (0) Flood Control (71) Other uses (60) *Other uses: hydropower, navigation, municipal water supply, recreation B:225'(:%% "1%Z+(-"##% X88+(%B:22:22:88:% "1%J("Y5#% E,:5%"1%% B+1(585/:2% Flow is validated at the outlet of the three regions: Missouri at Hermann, Upper Mississippi at Grafton and Ohio at Metropolis. 10

11 Experiment 1: Flow Diagram and Results A/:-"1+%Q"1"% *,134% JA.B% &A!B[BE&.;F%?995=3>,-% ;,-<5995=3>,-%.##'"/%0"1+(% $+-"#$2%"1% JA.B%3"2:#%2*"/+% &8"9"/%\% 1+-85("/% $50#2*"/:#7% G"1+(%$+-"#$2% "1%1,+%2'33"2:#%\% $":/4%(+25/'95#% ;'#5<% \%W"1'("/% &1(+"-=50% BE&.;F[GB% &:-'/"1+% (+7'/"1+$%=502%!:#N% O#8'1% E'18'1% B5$+/%% *5-85#+#1% Annual water demand by sector from GCAM for the time period of (upper panel), and monthly downscaled water demand by sector 11 for the time period of (lower panel).

12 Experiment 1: Flow Diagram and Results A/:-"1+%Q"1"% JA.B% &A!B[BE&.;F%.##'"/%0"1+(% $+-"#$2%"1% JA.B%3"2:#%2*"/+% &8"9"/%\% 1+-85("/% $50#2*"/:#7% G"1+(%$+-"#$2% "1%1,+%2'33"2:#%\% $":/4%(+25/'95#% ;'#5<% \%W"1'("/% &1(+"-=50% BE&.;F[GB% &:-'/"1+% (+7'/"1+$%=502%!:#N% O#8'1% E'18'1% B5$+/%% *5-85#+#1% Monthly natural streamflow for the time periods of (hist) and (B1 and A2 12 scenarios).

13 Experiment 1: Flow Diagram and Results A/:-"1+%Q"1"% JA.B% &A!B[BE&.;F%.##'"/%0"1+(% $+-"#$2%"1% JA.B%3"2:#%2*"/+% &8"9"/%\% 1+-85("/% $50#2*"/:#7% G"1+(%$+-"#$2% "1%1,+%2'33"2:#%\% $":/4%(+25/'95#% ;'#5<% \%W"1'("/% &1(+"-=50% BE&.;F[GB% &:-'/"1+% (+7'/"1+$%=502%!:#N% O#8'1% E'18'1% B5$+/%% *5-85#+#1% Monthly regulated streamflow for the time periods of (hist) and (B1 and A2 13 scenarios).

14 Experiment 1: Results Regulated vs. Natural Flows (B1) (+7'/"1+$%"#$%#"1'("/%('#5<%)5(%1,+%1,(++%(+7:5#2%"#$%1,+%X88+(%B:$0+21]% 14

15 Experiment 1: Results - Percent Change in Streamflow due to Reservoir Operations & Water Use Practices 15

16 Experiment 1: Results Water Supply Deficit (%) ;+/"95#2,:8%3+10++#%151"/%"##'"/%(+7'/"1+$%('#5<%"#$%8+(*+#1%$+L*:1%5)%"##'"/%0"1+(%$+-"#$% )5(%1,+%,:215(:*"/%"#$%)'1'(+%2:-'/"95#26%5M+(%1,+%1,(++%(+7:5#2%"#$%1,+%X88+(% 16 HI[H^%

17 Experiment 1: Results - Spatial Distribution of Water Supply Deficit (B1).##'"/%151"/%0"1+(%$+-"#$%C/+YD%"#$%"*1'"/%0"1+(%2'88/4%C*+#1+(D%:#%*'3:*% -+1+(26%"#$%)("*95#"/%0"1+(%2'88/4%$+L*:1%)5(%,:215(:*"/%"#$%)'1'(+%@H%8+(:5$2]% 17

18 Summary! Coupled a global integrated assessment model (GCAM) in a one-way fashion with a land surface hydrology routing water resources management model (SCLM-MOSART-WM)! A spatial and temporal disaggregation approach is developed to downscale the annual regional water demand simulations into a daily time step and subbasin representation! The coupled framework demonstrates reasonable ability to represent the historical flow regulation and water supply over the Midwest (Missouri, Upper Mississippi, and Ohio)! Implications for future flow regulation, water supply, and supply deficit are investigated using climate change projections with the B1 and A2 emission scenarios, which affect both natural flow and water demand! The next step is to perform a two-way coupling (Experiment 2) over the entire U.S. 18

19 Acknowledgements! This study was supported by:! PNNL s Platform for Regional Integrated Modeling and Analysis (PRIMA). THANKS! 19

20 For more information! B5,"-"$%Z+_"`:% -5,"-"$],+_"`:a8##/]75M% % 20

21 ADDITIONAL SLIDES 21

22 The Platform for Regional Integrated Modeling and Analysis (PRIMA) Coupling Options & Uncertainty Characterization STAKEHOLDER DECISION SUPPORT NEEDS Coupling Options & Uncertainty Characterization Regional Earth System Model (RESM) Atmosphere (WRF) Ocean (ROMS) Land & Water (CLM) Boundary Conditions Community Earth System Model (CESM) Annual heating and cooling degree-days Hourly weather data for building energy demand simulation Hourly weather data relevant to electricity operations Weather data and land cover for distributed hydrology Daily weather data for crop productivity simulation GHG emissions, land use, etc. A5'(1+24b%V+##:+%;:*+% Electricity demand by utility zone Electricity Demand (MELD) Electricity Operations (EOM) Power Plant Siting (SITE) Water supply by sub-basin Sub-basin Hydrology (SCLM) River Routing (MOSART) Water Management (WM) Downscaled land cover Building Energy Demand (BEND) Land Use/Land Cover Change (LULCC) Crop Productivity (EPIC) Global Scenario (e.g., RCP) Building stock and equipment by state Building energy demand by state Non-building electricity demand and electricity generation by state Infrastructure siting and operational costs and feasibility Water demand by basin and use Water supply by sub-basin Land use by agro-ecological zone Crop productivity by agro-ecological zone Global population, policies, etc. Integrated Assessment Model (GCAM) Energy Economy Water Agriculture & Land Use USA Global 22

23 Water: Representing the Interaction Pathways in the Integrated Water Cycle Regional Earth System Model (RESM) Integrated Assessment Model (GCAM) Atmosphere (WRF) Energy Economy Ocean (ROMS) Land & Water (CLM) Weather data and land cover for distributed hydrology Sub-basin Hydrology (SCLM) River Routing (MOSART) Water Management (WM) Water demand by basin and use Water supply by sub-basin Water Agriculture & Land Use USA Boundary Conditions Community Earth System Model (CESM) GHG emissions, land use, etc. Global Scenario (e.g., RCP) Global population, policies, etc. Global 23

24 Flow Diagrams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

25 Total U.S. water withdrawals and consumptive use 25

26 26

27 Experiment 1: Fraction of total demand attributed to the irrigation sector 27

28 Experiment 1: Results Relationship between deficit and flow 28