Verification of land-atmosphere coupling in forecast models, reanalyses and land surface models using flux site observations.

We confront four model systems in three configurations (LSM, LSM+GCM, and reanalysis) with global flux tower observations to validate states, surface fluxes, and coupling indices between land and atmosphere. Models clearly under-represent the feedback of surface fluxes on boundary layer properties (the atmospheric leg of land-atmosphere coupling), and may over-represent the connection between soil moisture and surface fluxes (the terrestrial leg). Models generally under-represent spatial and temporal variability relative to observations, which is at least partially an artifact of the differences in spatial scale between model grid boxes and flux tower footprints. All models bias high in near-surface humidity and downward shortwave radiation, struggle to represent precipitation accurately, and show serious problems in reproducing surface albedos. These errors create challenges for models to partition surface energy properly and errors are traceable through the surface energy and water cycles. The spatial distribution of the amplitude and phase of annual cycles (first harmonic) are generally well reproduced, but the biases in means tend to reflect in these amplitudes. Interannual variability is also a challenge for models to reproduce. Our analysis illuminates targets for coupled land-atmosphere model development, as well as the value of long-term globally-distributed observational monitoring.

Confronting weather and climate models with observational data from soil moisture networks over the United States.

Four land surface models in uncoupled and coupled configurations are compared to observations of daily soil moisture from 19 networks in the conterminous United States to determine the viability of such comparisons and explore the characteristics of model and observational data. First, observations are analyzed for error characteristics and representation of spatial and temporal variability. Some networks have multiple stations within an area comparable to model grid boxes; for those we find that aggregation of stations before calculation of statistics has little effect on estimates of variance, but soil moisture memory is sensitive to aggregation. Statistics for some networks stand out as unlike those of their neighbors, likely due to differences in instrumentation, calibration and maintenance. Buried sensors appear to have less random error than near-field remote sensing techniques, and heat dissipation sensors show less temporal variability than other types. Model soil moistures are evaluated using three metrics: standard deviation in time, temporal correlation (memory) and spatial correlation (length scale). Models do relatively well in capturing large-scale variability of metrics across climate regimes, but poorly reproduce observed patterns at scales of hundreds of kilometers and smaller. Uncoupled land models do no better than coupled model configurations, nor do reanalyses outperform free-running models. Spatial decorrelation scales are found to be difficult to diagnose. Using data for model validation, calibration or data assimilation from multiple soil moisture networks with different types of sensors and measurement techniques requires great caution. Data from models and observations should be put on the same spatial and temporal scales before comparison.