A warm-season comparison of WRF coupled to the CLM4.0, Noah-MP, and Bucket hydrology land surface schemes over the central USA

被引:16
作者
Van Den Broeke, Matthew S. [1 ]
Kalin, Andrew [2 ]
Alavez, Jose Abraham Torres [1 ]
Oglesby, Robert [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Hu, Qi [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, Dept Earth & Atmospher Sci, 306 Bessey Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA
[2] NOAA, Natl Weather Serv, Spokane, WA USA
[3] Univ Nebraska, Sch Nat Resources, Lincoln, NE USA
[4] Daugherty Water Food Inst, Lincoln, NE USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
UNITED-STATES; GREAT-PLAINS; CONVECTIVE PARAMETERIZATION; CLIMATE SIMULATION; SOIL-MOISTURE; PRECIPITATION; MODEL; MESOSCALE; TEMPERATURE; SENSITIVITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00704-017-2301-8
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
In climate modeling studies, there is a need to choose a suitable land surface model (LSM) while adhering to available resources. In this study, the viability of three LSM options (Community Land Model version 4.0 [CLM4.0], Noah-MP, and the five-layer thermal diffusion [Bucket] scheme) in the Weather Research and Forecasting model version 3.6 (WRF3.6) was examined for the warm season in a domain centered on the central USA. Model output was compared to Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) data, a gridded observational dataset including mean monthly temperature and total monthly precipitation. Model output temperature, precipitation, latent heat (LH) flux, sensible heat (SH) flux, and soil water content (SWC) were compared to observations from sites in the Central and Southern Great Plains region. An overall warm bias was found in CLM4.0 and Noah-MP, with a cool bias of larger magnitude in the Bucket model. These three LSMs produced similar patterns of wet and dry biases. Model output of SWC and LH/SH fluxes were compared to observations, and did not show a consistent bias. Both sophisticated LSMs appear to be viable options for simulating the effects of land use change in the central USA.
引用
收藏
页码:801 / 816
页数:16
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2010, TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIO
[2]  
ANTHES RA, 1984, J CLIM APPL METEOROL, V23, P541, DOI 10.1175/1520-0450(1984)023<0541:EOCPBM>2.0.CO
[3]  
2
[4]  
Baldocchi D, 2001, B AM METEOROL SOC, V82, P2415, DOI 10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO
[5]  
2
[6]   The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water surface [J].
Bowen, IS .
PHYSICAL REVIEW, 1926, 27 (06) :779-787
[7]  
Budyko M.I., 1961, The Heat Balance of the Earth's Surface
[8]   Precipitation Simulations Using WRF as a Nested Regional Climate Model [J].
Bukovsky, Melissa S. ;
Karoly, David J. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY, 2009, 48 (10) :2152-2159
[9]   DROUGHT IN SAHARA - BIOGEOPHYSICAL FEEDBACK MECHANISM [J].
CHARNEY, J ;
STONE, PH ;
QUIRK, WJ .
SCIENCE, 1975, 187 (4175) :434-435
[10]   A sensitivity study of high-resolution regional climate simulations to three land surface models over the western United States [J].
Chen, Feng ;
Liu, Changhai ;
Dudhia, Jimy ;
Chen, Ming .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2014, 119 (12) :7271-7291