TY - JOUR
T1 - On the predictability of turbulent fluxes from land
T2 - PLUMBER2 MIP experimental description and preliminary results
AU - Abramowitz, Gab
AU - Ukkola, Anna
AU - Hobeichi, Sanaa
AU - Page, Jon Cranko
AU - Lipson, Mathew
AU - De Kauwe, Martin G.
AU - Green, Samuel
AU - Brenner, Claire
AU - Frame, Jonathan
AU - Nearing, Grey
AU - Clark, Martyn
AU - Best, Martin
AU - Anthoni, Peter
AU - Arduini, Gabriele
AU - Boussetta, Souhail
AU - Caldararu, Silvia
AU - Cho, Kyeungwoo
AU - Cuntz, Matthias
AU - Fairbairn, David
AU - Ferguson, Craig R.
AU - Kim, Hyungjun
AU - Kim, Yeonjoo
AU - Knauer, Jürgen
AU - Lawrence, David
AU - Luo, Xiangzhong
AU - Malyshev, Sergey
AU - Nitta, Tomoko
AU - Ogee, Jerome
AU - Oleson, Keith
AU - Ottlé, Catherine
AU - Peylin, Phillipe
AU - de Rosnay, Patricia
AU - Rumbold, Heather
AU - Su, Bob
AU - Vuichard, Nicolas
AU - Walker, Anthony P.
AU - Wang-Faivre, Xiaoni
AU - Wang, Yunfei
AU - Zeng, Yijian
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PY - 2024/12/12
Y1 - 2024/12/12
N2 - Accurate representation of the turbulent exchange of carbon, water, and heat between the land surface and the atmosphere is critical for modelling global energy, water, and carbon cycles in both future climate projections and weather forecasts. Evaluation of models’ ability to do this is performed in a wide range of simulation environments, often without explicit consideration of the degree of observational constraint or uncertainty and typically without quantification of benchmark performance expectations. We describe a Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) that attempts to resolve these shortcomings, comparing the surface turbulent heat flux predictions of around 20 different land models provided with in situ meteorological forcing evaluated with measured surface fluxes using quality-controlled data from 170 eddy-covariance-based flux tower sites. Predictions from seven out-of-sample empirical models are used to quantify the information available to land models in their forcing data and so the potential for land model performance improvement. Sites with unusual behaviour, complicated processes, poor data quality, or uncommon flux magnitude are more difficult to predict for both mechanistic and empirical models, providing a means of fairer assessment of land model performance. When examining observational uncertainty, model performance does not appear to improve in low-turbulence periods or with energy-balance-corrected flux tower data, and indeed some results raise questions about whether the energy balance correction process itself is appropriate. In all cases the results are broadly consistent, with simple out-of-sample empirical models, including linear regression, comfortably outperforming mechanistic land models. In all but two cases, latent heat flux and net ecosystem exchange of CO2 are better predicted by land models than sensible heat flux, despite it seeming to have fewer physical controlling processes. Land models that are implemented in Earth system models also appear to perform notably better than stand-alone ecosystem (including demographic) models, at least in terms of the fluxes examined here. The approach we outline enables isolation of the locations and conditions under which model developers can know that a land model can improve, allowing information pathways and discrete parameterisations in models to be identified and targeted for future model development.
AB - Accurate representation of the turbulent exchange of carbon, water, and heat between the land surface and the atmosphere is critical for modelling global energy, water, and carbon cycles in both future climate projections and weather forecasts. Evaluation of models’ ability to do this is performed in a wide range of simulation environments, often without explicit consideration of the degree of observational constraint or uncertainty and typically without quantification of benchmark performance expectations. We describe a Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) that attempts to resolve these shortcomings, comparing the surface turbulent heat flux predictions of around 20 different land models provided with in situ meteorological forcing evaluated with measured surface fluxes using quality-controlled data from 170 eddy-covariance-based flux tower sites. Predictions from seven out-of-sample empirical models are used to quantify the information available to land models in their forcing data and so the potential for land model performance improvement. Sites with unusual behaviour, complicated processes, poor data quality, or uncommon flux magnitude are more difficult to predict for both mechanistic and empirical models, providing a means of fairer assessment of land model performance. When examining observational uncertainty, model performance does not appear to improve in low-turbulence periods or with energy-balance-corrected flux tower data, and indeed some results raise questions about whether the energy balance correction process itself is appropriate. In all cases the results are broadly consistent, with simple out-of-sample empirical models, including linear regression, comfortably outperforming mechanistic land models. In all but two cases, latent heat flux and net ecosystem exchange of CO2 are better predicted by land models than sensible heat flux, despite it seeming to have fewer physical controlling processes. Land models that are implemented in Earth system models also appear to perform notably better than stand-alone ecosystem (including demographic) models, at least in terms of the fluxes examined here. The approach we outline enables isolation of the locations and conditions under which model developers can know that a land model can improve, allowing information pathways and discrete parameterisations in models to be identified and targeted for future model development.
KW - ITC-GOLD
KW - ITC-ISI-JOURNAL-ARTICLE
U2 - 10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024
DO - 10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85212153906
SN - 1726-4170
VL - 21
SP - 5517
EP - 5538
JO - Biogeosciences
JF - Biogeosciences
IS - 23
ER -