Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Simulation of surface temperature and ice cover of large northern lakes with 1-D models: a comparison with MODIS satellite data and in situ measurements Cover

Simulation of surface temperature and ice cover of large northern lakes with 1-D models: a comparison with MODIS satellite data and in situ measurements

Tellus
Volume 64 (2012): Issue 1
By: ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2012
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1. 

Maps showing the location of GSL and GBL within the Mackenzie River Basin and meteorological stations.

Table 1. Physical characteristics of GSL and GBL

Location Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W) ZML (m) ZROI (m) ZMax (m) ZMean (m) V (km3) A (km2) GSL61441158027,000 Yellowknife station (Back Bay site) 62.46 114.44 10 10 Hay River station (Hay River site) 60.84 115.78 10 10 Main Basin (Main basin, GSL site) 61.50 114.6 40 80 GBL44672224031,000 Deline station (GBL site) 65.21 123.44 40 60

[i] Z ML is the effective mixed layer depth.

[ii] Z ROI is the actual lake depth at each site (region of interest, ROI).

[iii] Z Max is the maximum depth.

[iv] Z Mean is the average depth.

[v] V is the lake volume.

[vi] A is the lake area.

[vii] Z ML is used in CLIMo simulations (see explanation in Section 3.3).

Fig. 2. 

Comparison of modelled LSTs from CLIMo and FLake with MODIS-derived LSTs data during full year for 2002–2010: (a) Back Bay (Yellowknife station), (b) Hay River, (c) GSL (Main Basin) and (d) Deline-GBL.

Fig. 3. 

Comparison of modelled LSTs from CLIMo and FLake with MODIS-derived LSTs (°C) data during full year for 2002–2010: (a, b) Back Bay (Yellowknife station), (c, d) Hay River, (e, f) GSL (Main Basin) and (g, h) Deline-GBL.

Fig. 4. 

Comparison of modelled LSTs from CLIMo and FLake with MODIS-derived LSTs (°C) data during open water season for 2002–2010: (a, b) Back Bay (Yellowknife station), (c, d) Hay River, (e, f) GSL (Main Basin) and (g, h) Deline-GBL.

Table 2. Comparison of observed and simulated LST for Yellowknife (Back Bay), Hay River, GSL (Main Basin) and GBL (Deline) (2002–2010)

Back Bay Hay River GSL(Main Basin) GBL (Deline) CLIMo FLake CLIMo FLake CLIMo FLake CLIMo FLake Full yearIa 0.984 0.974 0.956 0.935 0.981 0.975 0.975 0.960 MBE 2.26 4.63 4.25 4.83 0.94 3.35 2.77 4.76 RMSE 4.30 5.64 6.27 7.64 3.93 4.63 4.45 5.82 Open water seasonIa 0.860 0.719 0.712 0.600 0.922 0.809 0.739 0.569 MBE 3.10 6.02 5.70 7.03 0.96 4.16 3.49 6.61 RMSE 4.20 6.47 6.86 8.43 2.78 4.53 4.06 6.95 Ice cover seasonIa 0.948 0.942 0.928 0.870 0.924 0.932 0.923 0.936 MBE 1.40 3.51 1.22 1.30 0.35 2.36 1.97 2.95 RMSE 4.71 4.98 5.11 6.54 5.14 4.79 5.01 4.64
Fig. 5. 

Simulated mixed layer depth by FLake for 2002–2010: (a) Back Bay (Yellowknife station), (b) Hay River, (c) GSL (Main Basin) and (d) Deline-GBL.

Fig. 6. 

Comparison of modelled LSTs from CLIMo and FLake with MODIS-derived LSTs (°C) data during ice cover season for 2002–2010: (a, b) Back Bay (Yellowknife station), (c, d) Hay River, (e, f) GSL (Main Basin) and (g, h) Deline-GBL.

Fig. 7. 

Comparison of observed (CID) and simulated (CLIMo and FLake) ice thickness (m) for Back Bay (1961–2008). Each dot in each year compares the in situ ice thickness values with the simulated one. There were about four in situ measurements available for each winter month.

Fig. 8. 

Comparison of observed (CID) and simulated ice thickness (m) for Back Bay: (a) CLIMo and (b) FLake (1961–2008).

Fig. 9. 

Comparison of observed (CID) and simulated (CLIMo and FLake) (a) break-up and (b) freeze-up dates for Back Bay (1961–1996), Julian days.

Fig. 10. 

Comparison of observed (CID) and simulated (CLIMo and FLake) (a, b) break-up and (c, d) freeze-up dates for Back Bay (1961–1996), Julian days.

Table 3. Comparison of observed and simulated ice thickness and break-up/freeze-up dates for Yellowknife (Back Bay) site (1961–2008)

CLIMo FLake Ice thicknessIa 0.943 0.777 MBE (cm) 9 25 RMSE (cm) 17 38 Break-upIa 0.893 0.714 MBE (days) 3 –6 RMSE (days) 4 7 Freeze-upIa 0.809 0.742 MBE (days) 2 3 RMSE (days) 7 7
Fig. 11. 

Comparison of simulated LST by FLake using daily and hourly averaged forcing (a) Hay River-GSL and (b) Deline-GBL (2002–2010).

Fig. 12. 

Comparison of simulated mixed layer depth by FLake using daily and hourly averaged forcing (a) Hay River-GSL and (b) Deline-GBL (2002–2010).

Table 4. Comparison of MODIS observed and simulated LST by FLake in Hay River, GSL and Deline, GBL (2002–2010) using daily forcing (FL_D) and hourly forcing (FL_A)

Hay River GBL (Deline) FL_D FL_A FL_D FL_A Full yearIa 0.929 0.935 0.962 0.960 MBE 5.12 4.83 4.58 4.76 RMSE 8.00 7.64 5.78 5.82 Open water seasonIa 0.580 0.600 0.576 0.569 MBE 7.44 7.03 6.50 6.61 RMSE 8.87 8.43 6.84 6.95 Ice cover seasonIa 0.861 0.870 0.937 0.936 MBE 1.38 1.30 2.67 2.95 RMSE 6.72 6.54 4.61 4.64
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.17614 | Journal eISSN: 3035-9554
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 17614 - 17614
Submitted on: Apr 10, 2011
Published on: Dec 1, 2012
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
lake surface temperature,
lake ice,
lake modelling,
MODIS,
Great Slave Lake,
Great Bear Lake

© 2012 H. Kheyrollah Pour, C. R. Duguay, A. Martynov, L. C. Brown, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 64 (2012): Issue 1
Previous article
Next article