Global nature run data with realistic high-resolution carbon weather for the year of the Paris Agreement.

The CO2 Human Emissions project has generated realistic high-resolution 9 km global simulations for atmospheric carbon tracers referred to as nature runs to foster carbon-cycle research applications with current and planned satellite missions, as well as the surge of in situ observations. Realistic atmospheric CO2, CH4 and CO fields can provide a reference for assessing the impact of proposed designs of new satellites and in situ networks and to study atmospheric variability of the tracers modulated by the weather. The simulations spanning 2015 are based on the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service forecasts at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, with improvements in various model components and input data such as anthropogenic emissions, in preparation of a CO2 Monitoring and Verification Support system. The relative contribution of different emissions and natural fluxes towards observed atmospheric variability is diagnosed by additional tagged tracers in the simulations. The evaluation of such high-resolution model simulations can be used to identify model deficiencies and guide further model improvements.

Upgrading Land-Cover and Vegetation Seasonality in the ECMWF Coupled System: Verification With FLUXNET Sites, METEOSAT Satellite Land Surface Temperatures, and ERA5 Atmospheric Reanalysis.

In this study, we show that limitations in the representation of land cover and vegetation seasonality in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) model are partially responsible for large biases (up to ∼10°C, either positive or negative depending on the region) on the simulated daily maximum land surface temperature (LST) with respect to satellite Earth Observations (EOs) products from the Land Surface Analysis Satellite Application Facility. The error patterns were coherent in offline land-surface and coupled land-atmosphere simulations, and in ECMWF's latest generation reanalysis (ERA5). Subsequently, we updated the ECMWF model's land cover characterization leveraging on state-of-the-art EOs-the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative land cover data set and the Copernicus Global Land Services leaf area index. Additionally, we tested a clumping parameterization, introducing seasonality to the effective low vegetation coverage. The updates reduced the overall daily maximum LST bias and unbiased root-mean-squared errors. In contrast, the implemented updates had a neutral impact on daily minimum LST. Our results also highlighted the complex regional heterogeneities in the atmospheric sensitivity to land cover and vegetation changes, particularly with issues emerging over eastern Brazil and northeastern Asia. These issues called for a re-calibration of model parameters (e.g., minimum stomatal resistance, roughness length, rooting depth), along with a revision of several model assumptions (e.g., snow shading by high vegetation).

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.

The plumbing of land surface models: is poor performance a result of methodology or data quality?

The PALS Land sUrface Model Benchmarking Evaluation pRoject (PLUMBER) illustrated the value of prescribing a priori performance targets in model intercomparisons. It showed that the performance of turbulent energy flux predictions from different land surface models, at a broad range of flux tower sites using common evaluation metrics, was on average worse than relatively simple empirical models. For sensible heat fluxes, all land surface models were outperformed by a linear regression against downward shortwave radiation. For latent heat flux, all land surface models were outperformed by a regression against downward shortwave, surface air temperature and relative humidity. These results are explored here in greater detail and possible causes are investigated. We examine whether particular metrics or sites unduly influence the collated results, whether results change according to time-scale aggregation and whether a lack of energy conservation in flux tower data gives the empirical models an unfair advantage in the intercomparison. We demonstrate that energy conservation in the observational data is not responsible for these results. We also show that the partitioning between sensible and latent heat fluxes in LSMs, rather than the calculation of available energy, is the cause of the original findings. Finally, we present evidence suggesting that the nature of this partitioning problem is likely shared among all contributing LSMs. While we do not find a single candidate explanation for why land surface models perform poorly relative to empirical benchmarks in PLUMBER, we do exclude multiple possible explanations and provide guidance on where future research should focus.

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.