Sensitivity of Land Surface Simulations to Model Physics, Land Characteristics, and Forcings, at Four CEOP Sites

Abstract

Numerical land surface models (LSMs) are abundant and in many cases highly sophisticated, yet their output has not converged towards a consensus depiction of reality. Addressing this matter is complicated by the huge number of possible combinations of input land characteristics, forcings, and physics packages available. The Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and its sister project the Land Information System (LIS) have made it straightforward to test a variety of configurations with multiple LSMs. In order to compare the impacts of the choice of LSM, land cover, soil, and elevation information, Corresponding author: Matt Rodell, Hydrological Sciences Branch, Code 614.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA. Email: Matthew.Rodell@nasa.gov ( 2007, Meteorological Society of Japan and precipitation and downward radiation forcing datasets on simulated evapotranspiration, sensible heat flux, and top layer soil moisture, a set of experiments was designed which made use of high quality, physically coherent, 1-year datasets from four reference sites of the Coordinated Enhanced Observing Period (CEOP) initiative. As in previous studies, it was shown that the LSM itself is generally the most important factor governing output. Beyond that, evapotranspiration seems to be most sensitive to precipitation, land cover, and radiation (in that order); sensible heat flux is most sensitive to radiation, precipitation, and land cover; and soil moisture is most sensitive to precipitation, soil, and land cover. Various seasonal and model specific dependencies and other caveats are discussed. Output fields were also compared with observations in order to test whether the LSMs are capable of simulating an observed reality given a plausible set of inputs. In general, that potential was fair for evapotranspiration, good for sensible heat flux but problematic given its strong sensitivity to the inputs, and poor for soil moisture. The results emphasize that improving the LSMs themselves, and not just the inputs, will be essential if we hope to model land surface water and energy processes accurately.

Diagnosing the Nature of Land–Atmosphere Coupling: A Case Study of Dry/Wet Extremes in the U.S. Southern Great Plains

“…While the coupled overestimation of net radiation during the wet regime was unexpected, it confirms the importance of offline LDAS driven by observed forcing in providing the best The results are supportive of those from Kato et al (2006), in that the choice of LSM does have substantial impact on simulated water and energy fluxes and states. Likewise, it is hoped that this type of analysis can pinpoint strengths and deficiencies in schemes (offline and coupled) that lead to model development.…”

Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India

“…For consistency, we applied degree-60 truncation and the same filtering process to the soil-water time series. Uncertainty in the GLDAS modelled soil-water time series was computed as the standard deviation of results from the five contributing simulations 27 .…”

“…Uncertainty in the GLDAS modelled soil-water time series was computed as the standard deviation of results from the five contributing simulations 27 . This calculation was done separately for the seasonal and secular components.…”

A global reconstruction of climate‐driven subdecadal water storage variability

“…A common and simple approach for estimating the uncertainty of modeled TWS changes is to use an ensemble of simulations from different LSMs [e.g., Kato et al, 2007]. This approach gives a first-order approximation of the underlying uncertainty but is typically limited by the small number of available models and is likely to underestimate the uncertainty if models share similar deficiencies.…”