university of washington, february 2016

29
Machine Learning on Images: Combining Passive Microwave and Optical Data to Estimate Snow Water Equivalent in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush Jeff Dozier University of California, Santa Barbara University of Washington, 2016-02-25

Upload: jeff-dozier

Post on 15-Apr-2017

294 views

Category:

Science


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: University of Washington, February 2016

Machine Learning on Images: Combining Passive Microwave and Optical Data to Estimate Snow Water Equivalent in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush

Jeff DozierUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

University of Washington, 2016-02-25

Page 2: University of Washington, February 2016
Page 3: University of Washington, February 2016
Page 4: University of Washington, February 2016

News item from IRIN (UN)http://www.irinnews.org/Report/93781/Analysis-Afghan-drought-conditions-could-spell-disaster

KABUL, 21 September 2011 (IRIN) – “The current dry spell sweeping across Afghanistan’s northern, northeastern and western provinces could lead to a large-scale food crisis and the humanitarian community should act quickly to ensure this does not degenerate into a disaster, government and aid officials warn.”

Page 5: University of Washington, February 2016
Page 6: University of Washington, February 2016

AMSR2,1.49 km3

Reconstruction,3.54 km3

SNODAS,5.22 km3

10 100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

103Snow water equivalent, Sierra Nevada, mm, 2014-04-01

Page 7: University of Washington, February 2016

Question: can we estimate the real snow water equivalent, in places like the Hindu Kush, from information available during the season?

2011-04-01, passive microwave SWE, 27 km3

SWE, mm snow fraction

2011-04-01, MODIS snow cover, 190,000 km22011-04-01, reconstructed SWE, 68 km3

Page 8: University of Washington, February 2016

Fractional snow cover from MODIS2015-04-01

𝑅𝜆=𝜖𝜆+∑𝑘=1

𝑁

𝑓 𝑘𝑅 𝜆 ,𝑘 Data from http://snow.jpl.nasa.gov

Page 9: University of Washington, February 2016

Comparison of MODIS (500m) and Landsat (30m) snow fraction, in the Sierra Nevada

32 scenes with coincident MODIS and Landsat imagesAverage RMSE = 7.8%Range from 2% to 12%

Page 10: University of Washington, February 2016

Energy balance reconstruction

American River basin Snow Pillows

on  day𝑛 ,𝑆𝑊𝐸𝑛=𝑆𝑊𝐸0−∑𝑗=1

𝑛

𝑀 𝑗

when𝑆𝑊𝐸𝑛=0 ,𝑆𝑊𝐸0=∑𝑗=1

𝑛

𝑀 𝑗

𝑀 𝑗=𝑀𝑝 𝑗× 𝑓 𝑆𝐶𝐴 𝑗

From energy balance model, driven by NLDAS or GLDAS

𝑀𝑝 𝑗

Page 11: University of Washington, February 2016

11

Downscaling

Sola

r rad

iatio

nLo

ngwa

ve ra

diat

ion

Page 12: University of Washington, February 2016

Water balance? Over a year so is ? (Only for Reconstruction)

Page 13: University of Washington, February 2016

Comparison of reconstructed SWE with Airborne Snow Observatory

Page 14: University of Washington, February 2016

Comparison of reconstructed SWE with Airborne Snow Observatory

Page 15: University of Washington, February 2016

Sierra Nevada, AMSR-E & Reconstruction

Page 16: University of Washington, February 2016
Page 17: University of Washington, February 2016

Persistent sources of uncertainty in passive microwave retrieval of SWE:deep snow, vegetation, sub-grid heterogeneity

[Luojus et al., GlobSnow ATBD, http://www.globsnow.info/docs/GS2_SWE_ATBD.pdf]

Page 18: University of Washington, February 2016

Question: can we estimate the real snow water equivalent from information available during the season?

2011-04-01, passive microwave SWE, 27 km3

SWE, mm snow fraction

2011-04-01, MODIS snow cover, 190,000 km22011-04-01, reconstructed SWE, 68 km3

Page 19: University of Washington, February 2016

The problem• Discover a pattern that uses real-time data—passive

microwave SWE and snow-covered area from optical sensor—to match reconstructed SWE, which is available only after the snow is gone

Approach• Among the choices for machine learning methods, start

with neural networks• Investigate alternatives later

• Develop a training set with 2003-2004 data, and predict 2005, from March 1 to June 1• Then adapt 2005 results, and predict 2006• And so on

Page 20: University of Washington, February 2016

Results

(modest improvement in R2 over time, but unpredictable bias)

Page 21: University of Washington, February 2016

2009 integrated total SWE (km3)

Page 22: University of Washington, February 2016

Insight from comparing statistical distributions (red predicted, blue reconstructed)

Page 23: University of Washington, February 2016

Improvements to the reconstruction

Page 24: University of Washington, February 2016

Remotely sensed albedo of fractional snow

Page 25: University of Washington, February 2016

Dirty snow albedo has a similar spectral shape to fine-grain clean snow

[Warren, Rev Geophys, 1982]

Page 26: University of Washington, February 2016

Errors in assimilated energy inputs

Page 27: University of Washington, February 2016

“Clouds” in cloud-free scenes (Landsat OLI, Sierra Nevada)a

2013-05-20 2015-03-07

Page 28: University of Washington, February 2016

Steps forward (but already better than what we have now)• Improve reconstruction

• Sensitive to albedo, so fix the albedo estimate of fractionally snow-covered pixels

• Consider alternatives to NLDAS/GLDAS• Solve the snow-cloud discrimination

• Incorporate better microwave snow retrieval methods• Improve machine learning

• Examine other ensemble statistical methods, e.g. genetic programming, regression boosted decision trees, support vector machines

• Find another input variable that helps with the bias, e.g. satellite precipitation products, models like WRF

• But . . . We’re encouraged by the results, as a way to estimate snow water equivalent in mountains without existing sensors

Page 29: University of Washington, February 2016

“the author of all books” (James Joyce, Finnegan’s Wake)

Slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/JeffDozier/

Finis

Data available at ftp://ftp.snow.ucsb.edu/pub/org/snow/users/dozier/MachineLearning/