Direct use of SUEWS-based land cover data without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category about wrf-suews HOT 24 CLOSED

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

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

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

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

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

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

The coefficient of reclassification is the same for all grids

from wrf-suews.

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?

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

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

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

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

from wrf-suews.

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:[email protected] – 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: [email protected]mailto:[email protected] W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/ From: Ting Sun [email protected] Sent: 10 July 2019 09:26 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS [email protected] Cc: Subscribed [email protected] 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.

from wrf-suews.

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

from wrf-suews.

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.

from wrf-suews.

from wrf-suews.

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

Yes, they are all varying.

from wrf-suews.