Representing a new MODIS consistent land surface in the Community Land Model (CLM 3.0)

[1] Recently a number of studies have found significant differences between Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) land surface mapping and the land surface parameters of the Community Land Model (CLM) of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM). To address these differences in land surface description, we have developed new CLM 3.0 land surface parameters that reproduce the physical properties described in the MODIS land surface data while maintaining the multiple Plant Functional Type (PFT) canopy and herbaceous layer representation used in CLM. These new parameters prescribe crop distributions directly from historical crop mapping allowing cropping to be described in CLM for any year from 1700 to current day. The new model parameters are calculated at 0.05 degrees resolution so they can be aggregated and used over a wider range of model grid resolutions globally. Compared to the current CLM 3.0 parameters, the new parameters have an increase in bare soil fraction of 10% which is realized through reduced tree, shrub, and crop cover. The new parameters also have area average increases of 10% for leaf area index (LAI) and stem area index (SAI) values, with the largest increases in tropical forests. The new land surface parameters have strong repeatable impacts on the climate simulated in CCSM 3.0 with large improvements in surface albedo compared to MODIS values. In many cases the improvements in surface albedo directly resulted in improved simulation of precipitation and near-surface air temperature; however, for the most part the existing biases of CCSM 3.0 remained with the new parameters. Further analysis of changes in surface hydrology revealed that the increased LAI of the new parameters resulted in lower overall evapotranspiration with reduced precipitation in CCSM 3.0. This was an unexpected result given that other research into the impacts of vegetation change suggests that the new parameters should have the opposite impact. This suggests that while the new parameters significantly improve the climate simulated in CLM 3.0 and CCSM 3.0, the new surface parameters have limited success in rectifying surface hydrology biases that result from the parameterizations within the CLM 3.0.