Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “datasets”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,477 records · Page 82
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Performance of reanalysis and mesoscale models off the coast of Hawai'i

The eastern Hawai'i coast in the United States is characterized by considerable wind resource fuelled by persistent trade winds, making it an important area for energy research. The need is strong for reanalyses and higher-resolution regional simulations where observations have been historically limited, such as Hawai'i's offshore environments. However, studies using offshore observations in other parts of the world have shown that significant errors can occur in reanalyses and wind datasets, which can lead to inaccurate estimates of wind energy generation, payback periods, and extreme weather risks at project locations. The degree of such errors is influenced by a number of factors, including spatial resolution and the handling of processes within the planetary boundary layer (PBL). In this work, we provide a wind resource characterization from year-long lidar buoy measurements off the eastern coast of O'ahu, Hawai'i, an environment previously unobserved at the rotor level, and use the characterization to evaluate the performance of two simulation datasets. The O'ahu deployment location is meteorologically unique and less complex than land-based wind resource characterizations, being strongly characterized by trade winds with minimal land–atmosphere interaction influences. Despite the unique and fairly consistent meteorological conditions, we hypothesize that distinct simulation datasets will exhibit diverse ranges of errors similar to those that have been seen for other offshore locations. We find the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) to strongly underestimate observed wind speeds at the O'ahu location (bias = −1.54 m s −1 at a height of 140 m above sea level), while a regional Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) simulation produced by the University of Hawai'i (UH-WRF) provides a significantly smaller wind speed bias (−0.25 m s −1 ), highlighting the value of running regional, higher-resolution simulations. The large bias noted for ERA5 is driven by significant underestimation of fast wind speeds (>9 m s −1 ), which the study site is largely characterized by, along with discontinuities in the ERA5 diurnal cycle. We also speculate that the relative sparsity of observations for data assimilation in this remote part of the world could influence the performance of ERA5 and that challenges with characterizing island effects could impact the performance of both datasets.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Arctic Mixed-Phase Cloud Base Ice Precipitation Properties During the M-PACE Field Campaign

Cloud-climate feedbacks are still the greatest source of uncertainty in current climate projections. Arctic clouds, which are predominantly stratiform and supercooled, often long-lived, and nearly-continuously precipitate ice particles, contribute roughly 10% of the uncertainty attributed to the global cloud feedback. This Arctic cloud uncertainty is driven by incomplete observational and theoretical knowledge required to estimate and explain the state and active processes occurring in those clouds. A focus on ice precipitation properties at Arctic cloud base rather than the surface deconfounds the product of cloud condensate sink processes from the influence of the atmospheric thermodynamic state below cloud base, rendering cloud-base properties a more appealing target for inference and evaluation of model simulations. This dataset provides a set of 25 samples from the M-PACE field campaign, all of which were retrieved using the synthesis of ARM radar and lidar measurements. The retrieved ice precipitation variables in this dataset include, among others, the ice number concentration, water content, PSD parameters, precipitation rate, mass-weighted fall velocity, vertical air motion, and effective radius, all of which are highly valuable for model evaluation and a general understanding of polar cloud sink processes. Each variable sample includes its mean value and associated uncertainty. Additional variables based on ARM measurements (liquid layer statistics, etc.) are included in this dataset as well. The retrieval algorithm and analysis of this dataset are described in Silber (JGR, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD038202).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Volatile Organic Compounds in Bankhead National Forest (AMF3). August to September, 2025

The formation of atmospheric aerosols through the transformation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a fundamental process in aerosol-climate interactions, as these particles serve as cloud condensation nuclei and ultimately influence Earth’s radiative balance. However, there remains a critical need to quantify the effects of multiple coexisting VOC precursors on aerosol formation beyond the limitations of laboratory-scale studies. This research aims to advance the mechanistic understanding of secondary organic aerosol formation in the southeastern United States by investigating interactions among coexisting VOC precursors observed at the third ARM Mobile Facility located in the Bankhead National Forest. The dataset was generated from the deployment of Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s PTR-TOF 6000 X2 Proton Transfer Reaction Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS) for the real-time, continuous monitoring of VOCs from August 21 to September 15, 2025. To minimize sampling artifacts and compound losses, the PTR-ToF-MS inlet was connected to the cabin flow line by replacing the existing Tygon tubing with 1/2-inch outer diameter perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) tubing. The instrument operated on an hourly measurement cycle consisting of 8 minutes of zero-air measurements followed by 52 minutes of ambient air sampling, with a temporal resolution of 10 seconds. The dataset includes concentrations, reported in ppb, of methanol, acetone, acetonitrile, isoprene, methyl vinyl ketone and methacrolein (MVK + MACR), monoterpenes, benzene, toluene, and catechol.

Atmospheric concentration of volatile organic comp↗
DOE OSTI2024

Characterization of Soil Thermal and Electrical Properties along Multiple Hillslope Transects at Teller Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2017

This dataset has been acquired along five-119 m long transects located on the bottom part of the watershed hillslope at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in July and September 2017. The Distributed Temperature Profiling (DTP) system dataset consist in vertically-resolved profile of soil temperature covering the top 0.8 m of soil with 8 cm interval. In addition to DPT data, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) data, soil moisture, depth to rock or thaw layer thickness (no differentiation) and ground elevations data have been acquired along each of the transects. A UAV-based geotiff mosaic of the investigated site is also provided. The four data types provided with this dataset of 37 files (*.csv, *.tif, *.DATA): (1) soil temperature profiles, (2) ERT data, (3) the physical measurements of the thaw layer, and (4) an orthomosaic GeoTIFF of the transect study area.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Full spectrum (350-2500 nm) canopy spectral reflectance, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018

Full-range (350-2500 nm) canopy reflectance spectra of various Arctic tundra ecosystem endmembers, including canopy-scale species endmember spectra, plot-scale spectra, and transect spectra as well as non-vegetated surface (NVS) spectra. The datasets were collected at the three core NGEE-Arctic watersheds, Kougarok, Teller, and Council, as well as the supplemental Kougarok Mile 80 site within the larger Seward Peninsula, Alaska region. The data were collected in July 2018 using a full-range Spectra Vista Corporation (SVC) HR-1024i spectroradiometer. Canopy-scale reflectance was collected with an 8-degree field-of-view (FOV) foreoptic lens. All spectral measurements were collected as calibrated surface radiance and converted to surface reflectance using a 99.99% reflective Spectralon white reference standard. For those canopy spectra collected with associated functional trait data, the FOV of the instrument was positioned to include the same leaves harvested for functional trait measurements, including leaf mass per area (LMA) and foliar carbon and nitrogen content (see associated dataset). Species included in the spectra and functional trait dataset include Alnus viridis, Betula nana, Betula glandulosa, Arctous alpina, and Salix pulchra. This data package includes 35 files in a variety of formats including processed canopy spectra (*.csv), processed dGPS locations (*.csv and *.kmz), digital photographs of spectral targets (*.jpg) and raw data from spectroradiometer and dGPS instruments (compressed as tar.gz). Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data and a key to species symbols used in data files. All included files are listed and described in NGA208_flmd.csv.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Concentration-Discharge Relationships in the Six Largest Arctic Rivers, 2003-2019

This dataset provides the results of the analysis of the relationship of dissolved analyte concentrations and river discharges in the six largest Arctic rivers across the global panarctic region (see Figure 1 in documentation file *.pdf). Long-term measurements of dissolved analyte concentrations and river discharge have been collected for each of the Kolyma, Lena, Mackenzie, Ob, Yenisey, and Yukon rivers by the Arctic Great Rivers Observatory (ArcticGRO) project from ~2003-present (Shiklomanov, 2021). The relationship of dissolved analyte concentrations and discharges in each river was characterized by statistical analysis of the slope of the log(concentration) vs log(discharge) (b), the coefficient of variation ratio (CVc/CVq), the 2.5% and 97.5% confidence intervals of b, and assigning a chemostatic, flushing, diluting, or non-systematic behavior category according to Koger (2018). The summary of these analyses for all six rivers is provided in one .csv file. The concentrations of 20 dissolved analytes and discharge measurement data for the individual Kolyma, Lena, Mackenzie, Ob, Yenisey, and Yukon rivers are also provided with this dataset. There are seven *.csv files; one for each river plus the statistical summary. These public ArcticGRO data at "https://www.arcticgreatrivers.org" (Shiklomanov, 2021) were downloaded on Feb 13, 2020, but each river has different measurement dates over the sampling and analysis period. The ArcticGRO metadata document (*.pdf) downloaded on Feb 13, 2020 is also included in this dataset. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil moisture, physical and chemical properties coincident with airborne SAR data collections for 2017 and 2019, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

Soil samples were collected coincident with in-situ soil moisture and thaw depth measurements at NGEE Arctic study sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in August 2017 and 2019 Field measurements and flights were conducted during both summers as a collaboration between the NASA ABoVE Project's Airborne SAR Campaign and the NGEE Arctic Project. Airborne overflights of L-band SAR instruments occurred during the soil sampling periods. Laboratory measurements of soil properties include bulk density, volumetric and gravimetric water content, carbon and nitrogen content, and particle size of mineral components. Soil samples processed and reported in this dataset were collected coincident with in situ measurements of soil moisture and thaw depth and airborne P-band and L-band SAR measurements as a collaboration between NGEE Arctic and NASA ABoVE. To learn more about how ABoVE protocols were applied for sampling site selection and making in situ measurements, see the following datasets: (2017: https://doi.org/10.5440/1423892 and 2019: https://doi.org/10.5440/1856042). Contained in this dataset are four .csv data files (including data dictionaries) and one zipped folder of *.pdf files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort (with some overlap with Covid-19 pandemic) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

In Situ Soil Moisture and Thaw Depth Measurements Coincident with Airborne SAR Data Collections, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

The in-situ soil moisture and thaw depth measurements provided in this dataset were collected coincident with airborne overflights of L- and P-band SAR instruments at the Teller and Kougarok NGEE Arctic study sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Field measurements and flights were conducted in August 2019 as a collaboration between the NASA ABoVE Project's Airborne SAR Campaign and the NGEE Arctic Project. ABoVE protocols for establishing field measurement plots were followed. NGEE Arctic plots for the ground-based measurements are located at existing study sites where SAR data would also add value to current monitoring and characterization efforts of the NGEE Team. The ground-based data will be used by ABoVE to analyze, calibrate and validate the remote sensing products. This dataset follows the format and collection guidelines of the collaboration effort in 2017. Contained in this dataset are *.csv (including data dictionaries), .zip, .kml, .jpgs, .py, and .pdf files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort (with some overlap with Covid-19 pandemic) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil physical and thermal properties from soil samples at multiple locations at Teller Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

This dataset contains results of the laboratory analysis of soil samples collected across the watershed located at miles #27 along the Teller road, near Nome, AK. The dataset includes 124 soil samples retrieved from 52 locations during the first week of August 2019. The soil samples were collected in the top 1.2 m of soil with volume known samples, analyzed with a thermal analyser to infer thermal parameters (thermal conductivity, volumetric heat capacity and thermal diffusivity), and then processed in a lab for estimation of their bulk density, water content, carbon and nitrogen content, soil texture, and elemental fractions. This dataset has one csv file and one pdf file.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Machine learning predictions of near-surface permafrost extent at Teller 27, Teller 47, and the Kougarok 64 Hillslope sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: Supporting Data

Geophysical surveys were conducted at the NGEE Arctic Teller mile marker 27 site, Teller mile marker 47 site, and Kougarok mile marker 64 site during the summers of 2018, 2019, and 2021. Additional data was collected at Teller mile marker 47 during September 2021 and August 2022. These surveys were used to identify locations of near-surface permafrost during the period of maximum seasonal thaw depth for ground truth data used in machine learning predictions of near-surface permafrost extent at each site. This dataset contains CSV files of ground truth observations of near-permafrost presence or absence for each site, where PF = 1 indicates permafrost presence and PF = 0 indicates permafrost absence. The dataset also includes 2 sets of binary rasters (WGS84 UTM zone 3) of permafrost extent for each site using 1) all of the training data and 2) the transferred model. For both sets of rasters, 0 = non-permafrost and 1 = permafrost. Included are 6 *.tif files and 5 *.csv files that include a data dictionary (dd.csv) and file-level metadata (flmd.csv). This dataset is in support of the paper "Machine learning-derived high-resolution maps of near-surface permafrost for three watersheds on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska" that is in review (May 2023). The Next-Generation Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

United States Multi-Sector Dynamics land use and land cover base maps to support Human-Earth System Modeling

Datasets are land use and land cover (LULC) rasterized base maps at 30-m resolution for the conterminous United States (CONUS) for the years 2008, 2011, 2016, and 2019. Separate base maps are provided where LULC classifications are thematically congruent with Community Land Model (CLM), Land Use Harmonization (LUH2), and Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), and a detailed decomposition of all combined land classes into a Multisector Dynamics (MSD) LULC product. Base maps were developed using empirically derived satellite (National Land Cover Dataset, MODIS) and combined observation datasets (Crop Data Layer, Protected Areas Database) and represent the most up-to-date accurate information on LULC in the CONUS. The four datasets encompass four different landcover classification systems: MSD Layers - The raw landcover classes obtained from reclassifying NLCD and USDA Crop data layers into a respective landcover class GCAM Layers - The MSD classes mosaiced, reclassified, and combined into the respective GCAM landcover classes CLM Layers - Similar process to GCAM layers, but mosaiced, reclassified, and combined MSD layers to their respective PFT classes LUH2 Layers - Similar process to both GCAM and CLM Layers, but mosaiced, reclassified and combined the MSD layers to align with the respective states

Food↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins

This repository of global hydrogeologic datasets contains aquifer properties on 0.5° scale, including depth to groundwater (Fan et al., 2013), aquifer thickness (de Graaf et al., 2015), WHYMap aquifer classes (Richts et al., 2011), porosity and permeability (Gleeson et al., 2014), digitized and geo-processed from their respective sources. Globally gridded aquifer properties could be used independently to estimate global groundwater availability or used as critical inputs to the superwell model to simulate groundwater extraction and provide estimates of pumped volumes and unit costs under user-specific scenarios. Key resources related to this data are: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Graham, N., Yoon, J., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024; In-prep). Long-term Hydro-economic Assessment Tool for Evaluating Global Groundwater Cost and Supply: Superwell v1. Geoscientific Model Development. superwell model repository which uses this data to simulate groundwater extraction and provides estimates of the global extractable volumes and unit-costs ($/km3) of accessible groundwater production under user-specified extraction scenarios. Repository Overview Main output: aquifer_properties.csv contains all processed outputs, including aquifer properties like porosity, permeability, aquifer thickness, and depth to groundwater. shapefiles.zip: contains all digitized GIS databases and shapefile for all aquifer properties prep_inputs.R: R script that processes the shapefiles to produce the aquifer_properties file plot_inputs.R: R script for plotting the maps and conducting preliminary analysis on the available groundwater volume basin_to_country_mapping.csv, basin_country_region_mapping.csv and continent_county_mapping.csv provide the mapping between continents, 32 energy-economic macro regions, countries, and water basins for post-processing aquifer_properties.csv Maps: Each map visualizes the spatial distribution of one of the aquifer properties across the globe map_in_Porosity.png map_in_Permeability.png map_in_Aquifer_thickness.png map_in_Depth_to_water.png map_in_Grid_area_km.png map_in_WHYClass.png Sample inputs sample_inputs.py: this script samples inputs from the aquifer_properties dataset, ensuring the sampled and original inputs maintain the same distributions sampled_data_100.csv contains 100 sampled data points and sampled_data_100.png compares their distributions Dataset Overview The main outputs are consolidated in a comprehensive aquifer_properties.csv file and include the following fields: GridCellID: Unique identifier for each (roughly 0.5°) grid cell Continent: Continent name Country: Country name GCAM_basin_ID: Identifier for GCAM hydrologic basin Basin_long_name: Full name of the basin WHYClass: Hydrogeologic classification based on WHYMap aquifer classes (Richts et al., 2011) Porosity: Soil porosity (%) (Gleeson et al., 2014) Permeability: Soil permeability (in square meters; Gleeson et al., 2014) Aquifer_thickness: Thickness of the aquifer (in meters; de Graaf et al., 2015) Depth_to_water: Depth to groundwater (in meters; Fan et al., 2013) Grid_area: Area of the grid cell (in square meters) Key References The datasets are digitized versions of global hydrogeologic properties from the following key literature sources: Depth to Groundwater: Fan, Y., Li, H., & Miguez-Macho, G. (2013). Global Patterns of Groundwater Table Depth. Science, 339(6122), 940-943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229881 Aquifer Thickness: de Graaf, I. E. M., Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, L. P. H., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2015). A high-resolution global-scale groundwater model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19(2), 823-837. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-823-2015 Porosity and Permeability: Gleeson, T., Moosdorf, N., Hartmann, J., & van Beek, L. P. H. (2014). A glimpse beneath earth's surface: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS (GLHYMPS) of permeability and porosity. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(11), 3891-3898. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059856 Aquifer classes: Richts, A., Struckmeier, W. F., & Zaepke, M. (2011). WHYMAP and the Groundwater Resources Map of the World 1:25,000,000. In J. A. A. Jones (Ed.), Sustaining Groundwater Resources: A Critical Element in the Global Water Crisis (pp. 159-173). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3426-7_10 Cite as Niazi, H., Watson, D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Ferencz, S., Vernon, C., Graham, N., Wild, T., & Yoon, J. (2024). Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins. MSD-LIVE Data Repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 Contact Reach out to Hassan Niazi or open an issue in superwell repository for questions or suggestions.

aquifer thickness↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data for "Divergent urban land trajectories under alternative population projections within the shared socioeconomic pathways"

Datasets supporting findings and visualizations behind McManamay et al. (2024) Divergent urban land trajectories under alternative population projections within the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad2eec Using a spatial modeling experiment at high resolution (1-km), this study compared how two alternative US population projections, varying in the spatially explicit nature of demographic patterns and migration, affect urban land dynamics simulated by the Spatially Explicit, Long-term, Empirical City development (SELECT) model for SSP2, SSP3, and SSP5. The numerical experiment, inputs and outputs are fully described in McManamay et al. (2024). The datasets summarize SELECT model simulations within urban areas and rural areas of the conterminous United States. For code to reproduce the results, please refer to https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/mcmanamay_etal_2024_erl Please refer to the README file provided in Files for more details. Descriptions of the datasets are provided below. Dataset(s) Descriptions: Urban_Land_delta_UA_County.csv: Urban land area for original (default) population, updated population, and urban land delta (difference between the two) according to Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and year. Urban land is summarized for U.S. counties (FIPS code) and urban areas (GEOID) as unique areas within various counties. JO_Gao_pop_ufdelta.csv: Comparison of population differences and urban land differences between the origial (default) and updated population projections. City_Case_studies.csv: Differences in urban land areas arising from different population projections summarized for selected cities (Atlanta, Los Angeles, Houston, and New York) and their surrounding rural areas UA_county_FID.zip: Zipped folder of .tiff file depicting unique combination of urban areas and US counties used for summarizing urban land differences in urban and rural areas based on different population projections. ULD_clusters.zip: Zipped folder of .csv files depicting normalized changes in urban land delta (difference in urban land arising from population projections) and the respective Ward's hierarchical clusters, which group urban and rural areas based on similarities in temporal trends. Urban_Percent_change_2100.zip: Zipped folder of .csv files depicting percent changes in urban land area for year 2100 based on differences in the original (default) population and updated population. Each file is for SSPs and urban or rural areas.

Land↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Corn Heat Stress: Mean and SD of Degree Days Above 29°C based on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Climate Projections

Description This global dataset provides the estimated mean and standard deviation (SD) of corn heat stress (degree days above 29°C) for a set of climate models in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 at 0.25-degree resolution. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model (GCM) runs conducted under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The current dataset includes: Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 The mean and SD are calculated over 1985-2014 for the historical period and over 2035-2064 for future projections. A full description of methods, including growing season, daily temperature distribution, and statistical coefficients, can be found in Haqiqi (2024). The source climate data are obtained from https://ds.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds2/catalog/catalog.html and are described in Thrasher et al (2022). The codes used to create this dataset are available at https://github.com/ihaqiqi/dd29c_nex_cmip6. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics under Cooperative Agreement DE-SC0022141. The data processing, computation, and storage were completed on Purdue Anvil supercomputer and cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation HDR award # 2118329: "NSF Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE)". References Haqiqi. I. (2024). Trade can buffer climate-induced risks and volatilities in crop supply. Environmental Research: Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad7d12 Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., & Nemani, R. (2022). NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Scientific Data, 9(1), 262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins

This repository of global hydrogeologic datasets contains aquifer properties on 0.5° scale, including depth to groundwater (Fan et al., 2013), aquifer thickness (de Graaf et al., 2015), WHYMap aquifer classes (Richts et al., 2011), recharge (Döll and Fiedler, 2008; Gleeson et al., 2016), lakes (Messager et al., 2016), porosity and permeability (Gleeson et al., 2014), digitized and geo-processed from their respective sources. Globally gridded aquifer properties could be used independently to estimate global groundwater availability or used as critical inputs to the superwell model to simulate groundwater extraction and provide estimates of pumped volumes and unit costs under user-specific scenarios. Key resources related to this data are: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S. B., Graham, N. T., Yoon, J., Wild, T. B., Hejazi, M., Watson, D. J., & Vernon, C. R. (2025). Long-term hydro-economic analysis tool for evaluating global groundwater cost and supply: Superwell v1.1. Geoscientific Model Development, 18(5), 1737-1767. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1737-2025 superwell model repository which uses this data to simulate groundwater extraction and provides estimates of the global extractable volumes and unit-costs ($/km3) of accessible groundwater production under user-specified extraction scenarios. Repository Overview Main output: aquifer_properties_rec.csv contains all processed outputs, including aquifer properties like porosity, permeability, recharge, lake areas, aquifer thickness, and depth to groundwater. shapefiles.zip: contains all digitized GIS databases and shapefile for all aquifer properties prep_inputs.R and prep_inputs_recharge_lakes.R: R scripts that process the shapefiles to produce the aquifer_properties_rec.csv file plot_inputs.R: R script for plotting the maps and conducting preliminary analysis on the available groundwater volume basin_to_country_mapping.csv, basin_country_region_mapping.csv and continent_county_mapping.csv provide the mapping between continents, 32 energy-economic macro regions, countries, and water basins for post-processing aquifer_properties_rec.csv Maps: Each map visualizes the spatial distribution of one of the aquifer properties across the globe map_in_Porosity.png map_in_Permeability.png map_in_Aquifer_thickness.png map_in_Depth_to_water.png map_in_Recharge.png map_in_Grid_area_km.png map_in_Lake_area_km.png map_in_WHYClass.png Sample inputs sample_inputs.py: this script samples inputs from the aquifer_properties_rec dataset, ensuring the sampled and original inputs maintain the same distributions sampled_data_100.csv contains 100 sampled data points and sampled_data_100.png compares their distributions Dataset Overview The main outputs are consolidated in a comprehensive aquifer_properties_rec.csv file and include the following fields: GridCellID: Unique identifier for each (roughly 0.5°) grid cell Continent: Continent name Country: Country name GCAM_basin_ID: Identifier for GCAM hydrologic basin Basin_long_name: Full name of the basin WHYClass: Hydrogeologic classification based on WHYMap aquifer classes (Richts et al., 2011) Porosity: Soil porosity (%) (Gleeson et al., 2014) Permeability: Soil permeability (in square meters; Gleeson et al., 2014) Aquifer_thickness: Thickness of the aquifer (in meters; de Graaf et al., 2015) Depth_to_water: Depth to groundwater (in meters; Fan et al., 2013) Recharge: long-term annual averaged recharge rates (in m/yr; Döll and Fiedler, 2008; Gleeson et al., 2016) Grid_area: Area of the grid cell (in square meters) Lakes_area: Area of inland lakes (in square meters; Messager et al., 2016) Key References The datasets are digitized versions of global hydrogeologic properties from the following key literature sources: Depth to Groundwater: Fan, Y., Li, H., & Miguez-Macho, G. (2013). Global Patterns of Groundwater Table Depth. Science, 339(6122), 940-943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229881 Aquifer Thickness: de Graaf, I. E. M., Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, L. P. H., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2015). A high-resolution global-scale groundwater model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19(2), 823-837. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-823-2015 Porosity and Permeability: Gleeson, T., Moosdorf, N., Hartmann, J., & van Beek, L. P. H. (2014). A glimpse beneath earth's surface: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS (GLHYMPS) of permeability and porosity. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(11), 3891-3898. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059856 Aquifer classes: Richts, A., Struckmeier, W. F., & Zaepke, M. (2011). WHYMAP and the Groundwater Resources Map of the World 1:25,000,000. In J. A. A. Jones (Ed.), Sustaining Groundwater Resources: A Critical Element in the Global Water Crisis (pp. 159-173). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3426-7_10 Recharge: Döll, P., & Fiedler, K. (2008). Global-scale modeling of groundwater recharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12(3), 863-885. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-863-2008; Gleeson, T., Befus, K. M., Jasechko, S., Luijendijk, E., & Cardenas, M. B. (2016). The global volume and distribution of modern groundwater. Nature Geoscience, 9(2), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2590 Inland Lakes: Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I., & Schmitt, O. (2016). Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nature Communications, 7(1), 13603. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13603 Cite as Niazi, H., Watson, D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Ferencz, S., Vernon, C., Graham, N., Wild, T., & Yoon, J. (2024). Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins. MultiSector Dynamics-Living, Intuitive, Value-adding, Environment. https://doi.org/10.57931/2484226 Contact Reach out to Hassan Niazi or open an issue in the superwell repository for questions or suggestions.

aquifer thickness↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗