Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category

[sunt05]

If I have high resolution land use categories data based on SUEWS (i.e. seven types), how can I put it into WRF-SUEWS without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category?

Originally posted by @zhenkunl in https://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/45#issuecomment-509905307

[sunt05]

This question per se is valuable; but I think you should know how to do it, right? since you wrote that part of code 😃 @zhenkunl

[sunt05]

one thing to think about is whether your SUEWS-based LC data is available for the whole domain or just a smaller area. If the latter, we still need the MODIS-data and incorporate your SUEWS-based LC into it with proper reclassification (that's why we designed the current reclassification scheme); while for the former, as I said, the answer should be obvious to you.

[zhenkunl]

Yes I read the code again, and I am thinking about how to calculate the alb_SUEWS and emis_SUEWS as both are based on MODIS categories.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

I think the best way is to modify MODIS land cover in a way that results in SUEWS classification you desire ( the current approach). Other ways require change in the main source code. Beside, you need to have SUEWS land cover for even domain 1 if you like to do it without reclassification of MODIS

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:18 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

one thing to think about is whether your SUEWS-based LC data is available for the whole domain or just a smaller area. If the latter, we still need the MODIS-data and incorporate your SUEWS-based LC into it with proper reclassification (that's why we designed the current reclassification scheme); while for the former, as I said, the answer should be obvious to you.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

Alb_SUEWS and emis_SUEWS are calculated based on the albedo and emissivity in LANDUSE.TBL and the reclassified land Cover I think. So one way is to change albedo values in the table.

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:21 AM, Zhenkun Li notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes I read the code again, and I am thinking about how to calculate the alb_SUEWS and emis_SUEW as both are based on MODIS categories.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[sunt05]

@hamidrezaomidvar can you remind me whether the reclassification is done during real.exe or being conducted at the beginning of wrf.exe?

[zhenkunl]

Indeed I have only data of the Shanghai area. If SUEWS-based LC is incorporated into MODIS-data, it will lose some accuracy when it is converted to SUEWS-based LC afterwards.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

It is done during wrf.exe. So you cannot see the landuse_suews or alb_suews in wrfinput. They come into wrf outputs

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

@hamidrezaomidvar can you remind me whether the reclassification is done during real.exe or being conducted at the beginning of wrf.exe?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

That is true. Mostly for the first two categories of Suews

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

@hamidrezaomidvar can you remind me whether the reclassification is done during real.exe or being conducted at the beginning of wrf.exe?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[sunt05]

That is true. Mostly for the first two categories of Suews … On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Ting Sun @.***> wrote: @hamidrezaomidvar can you remind me whether the reclassification is done during real.exe or being conducted at the beginning of wrf.exe? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces.

[zhenkunl]

Alb_SUEWS and emis_SUEWS are calculated based on the albedo and emissivity in LANDUSE.TBL and the reclassified land Cover I think. So one way is to change albedo values in the table.

Yes it will use the LANDUSE.TBL, but I don't think we have albedo and emissivity values for paved and buildings. How do you deal with London case? @hamidrezaomidvar

[hamidrezaomidvar]

Bu I think you should be able to get the accurate one by also changing the coefficient of reclassification in namelist.suews. Does it make sense?

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:35 AM, Hamidreza Omidvar omidvar.hamidreza@gmail.com wrote:

That is true. Mostly for the first two categories of Suews

On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

@hamidrezaomidvar can you remind me whether the reclassification is done during real.exe or being conducted at the beginning of wrf.exe?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[zhenkunl]

The coefficient of reclassification is the same for all grids

[hamidrezaomidvar]

Alb_SUEWS and emis_SUEWS are calculated based on the albedo and emissivity in LANDUSE.TBL and the reclassified land Cover I think. So one way is to change albedo values in the table.

Yes it will use the LANDUSE.TBL, but I don't think we have albedo and emissivity values for paved and buildings. How do you deal with London case? @hamidrezaomidvar

I used Helen's paper since the values are there for London. So I am a little bit confused with the problem. Can you express the problem again, is it related to calculation of albe_SUEWS, or the land cover values?

[zhenkunl]

I would like to absorb accurate land use categories based on SUEWS-LC because it is easy for my colleague to obtain them. However, if we reclassify them into MODIS-LC, it can not be reversed exactly the same as originally when initialize SUEWS.

[zhenkunl]

I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces.

This is a possible way to achieve the purpose. Let me try.

[sunt05]

I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces.

This is a possible way to achieve the purpose. Let me try.

Also, I just had a look at the LANDUSE.TBL file and confirmed there are schemes with more than 21 LC types, some of which even have unassigned LCs. So they could be well used to distinguish the detailed info of urban surface you get. @zhenkunl

Then the key point would be to generate the proper wrfinput by choosing a proper LC scheme when doing WPS for synthesising geo_em files

[suegrimmond]

Doesn’t this assume then that the building heights are the same in all areas – that are classified with one class.

@Hamidreza Omidvarmailto:h.omidvar@reading.ac.uk – how are you capturing the variability in Colombo

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Ting Sun notifications@github.com Sent: 10 July 2019 09:26 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category (#52)

I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces.

This is a possible way to achieve the purpose. Let me try.

Also, I just had a look at the LANDUSE.TBL file and confirmed there are schemes with more than 21 LC types, some of which even have unassigned LCs. So they could be well used to distinguish the detailed info of urban surface you get. @zhenkunlhttps://github.com/zhenkunl

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/52?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXU3HQHPJPEGSCDUIG3P6WMJPA5CNFSM4H7MGPXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZSW2JA#issuecomment-509963556, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXSPC6ID7E5S5XCS5S3P6WMJPANCNFSM4H7MGPXA.

[zhenkunl]

You are right. I have also noticed that. @sunt05

[sunt05]

this reclassification has nothing to do with building height: it would only retrieve the land cover fractions. building height is handled in a separate variable, which is customisable and thus variable across grids.

Doesn’t this assume then that the building heights are the same in all areas – that are classified with one class. @hamidreza Omidvarmailto:h.omidvar@reading.ac.uk – how are you capturing the variability in Colombo Best wishes Sue ============================================ Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/ From: Ting Sun notifications@github.com Sent: 10 July 2019 09:26 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category (#52) I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces. This is a possible way to achieve the purpose. Let me try. Also, I just had a look at the LANDUSE.TBL file and confirmed there are schemes with more than 21 LC types, some of which even have unassigned LCs. So they could be well used to distinguish the detailed info of urban surface you get. @zhenkunlhttps://github.com/zhenkunl — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#52?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXU3HQHPJPEGSCDUIG3P6WMJPA5CNFSM4H7MGPXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZSW2JA#issuecomment-509963556>, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXSPC6ID7E5S5XCS5S3P6WMJPANCNFSM4H7MGPXA.

[zhenkunl]

I haven't read Helen's paper before. Could you explain more about the data and method you used? @hamidrezaomidvar

[sunt05]

I haven't read Helen's paper before. Could you explain more about the data and method you used? @hamidrezaomidvar

for your case, nothing to do with Helen's paper.

[suegrimmond]

Building height – was just one parameter Albedo Emissivity

Etc So if all are still varying - great

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Ting Sun notifications@github.com Sent: 10 July 2019 09:32 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Sue Grimmond c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk; Comment comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category (#52)

this reclassification has nothing to do with building height: it would only retrieve the land cover fractions. building height is handled in a separate variable, which is customisable and thus variable across grids.

Doesn’t this assume then that the building heights are the same in all areas – that are classified with one class. @hamidrezahttps://github.com/hamidreza Omidvarmailto:h.omidvar@reading.ac.uk – how are you capturing the variability in Colombo Best wishes Sue ============================================ Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/ From: Ting Sun notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com Sent: 10 July 2019 09:26 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.commailto:WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.commailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category (#52https://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/52) I think this can be resolved by introducing extra categories into MODIS (e.g., 31, 32 and 33 as used by UCM), which thus could be used as avenue to hold the detailed info of built-up surfaces. This is a possible way to achieve the purpose. Let me try. Also, I just had a look at the LANDUSE.TBL file and confirmed there are schemes with more than 21 LC types, some of which even have unassigned LCs. So they could be well used to distinguish the detailed info of urban surface you get. @zhenkunlhttps://github.com/zhenkunlhttps://github.com/zhenkunl — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#52https://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/52?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXU3HQHPJPEGSCDUIG3P6WMJPA5CNFSM4H7MGPXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZSW2JA#issuecomment-509963556>, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXSPC6ID7E5S5XCS5S3P6WMJPANCNFSM4H7MGPXA.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/52?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXVE676RYHNAIXLTPG3P6WNANA5CNFSM4H7MGPXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZSXLBA#issuecomment-509965700, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXRJG3GCDVMXWDEJMJTP6WNANANCNFSM4H7MGPXA.

[sunt05]

Building height – was just one parameter Albedo Emissivity Etc So if all are still varying - great

Yes, they are all varying.