Abstract
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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 5517-5538 |
Number of pages | 22 |
Journal | Biogeosciences |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 23 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Dec 12 2024 |
Funding
The flux tower data used here are available at 10.25914/5fdb0902607e1 as per Ukkola et al. (2021, 2022) and use data acquired and shared by the FLUXNET community, including these networks: AmeriFlux, AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada, GreenGrass, ICOS, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux-TERN, TCOS-Siberia, and USCCC. The ERA-Interim reanalysis data are provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and are processed by LSCE. The FLUXNET eddy covariance data processing and harmonisation was carried out by the European Fluxes Database Cluster, AmeriFlux Management Project, and Fluxdata project of FLUXNET, with the support of CDIAC, the ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Center, and the OzFlux, ChinaFlux, and AsiaFlux offices. All the land model simulations in this experiment are hosted at https://modelevaluation.org and, to the extent that participants have no legal barriers to sharing them, are available after registration at https://modelevaluation.org . The analyses shown here were also performed on modelevaluation.org, using the codebase publicly available at modelevaluation.org (2024). Gab Abramowitz, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Anna Ukkola, and Martin G. De Kauwe acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (grant no. CE170100023). Anna Ukkola acknowledges the support of the ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (no. DE200100086). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources and services from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian government. Bob Su, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng acknowledge the support of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (WUNDER project, grant no. KICH1.LWV02.20.004) and the Netherlands eScience Center (EcoExtreML project, grant no. 27020G07). Jonathan Frame acknowledges the support of a NOAA Cooperative Agreement (no. NA19NES4320002). The contributions by Keith Oleson and David Lawrence are supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant no. 1852977. Computing and data storage resources for CLM5, including the Cheyenne supercomputer ( 10.5065/D6RX99HX ), were provided by the Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL) at NCAR. Hyungjun Kim was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the South Korean government (MSIT) (no. 2021H1D3A2A03097768). Anthony P. Walker acknowledges that ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the DOE under contract no. DE-AC05-100800OR22725. The LSTM models were run with computing resources provided by the NASA Terrestrial Hydrology programme (grant no. 80NSSC18K0982). The Noah-MP simulations were funded by NASA (grant no. 80NSSC21K1731). Gab Abramowitz, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Anna Ukkola, and Martin G. De Kauwe acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (grant no. CE170100023). Anna Ukkola acknowledges the support of the ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (no. DE200100086). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources and services from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian government. Bob Su, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng acknowledge the support of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (WUNDER project, grant no. KICH1.LWV02.20.004) and the Netherlands eScience Center (EcoExtreML project, grant no. 27020G07). Jonathan Frame acknowledges the support of a NOAA Cooperative Agreement (no. NA19NES4320002). The contributions by Keith Oleson and David Lawrence are supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant no. 1852977. Computing and data storage resources for CLM5, including the Cheyenne supercomputer (https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX), were provided by the Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL) at NCAR. Hyungjun Kim was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the South Korean government (MSIT) (no. 2021H1D3A2A03097768). Anthony P. Walker acknowledges that ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the DOE under contract no. DE-AC05-100800OR22725. The LSTM models were run with computing resources provided by the NASA Terrestrial Hydrology programme (grant no. 80NSSC18K0982). The Noah-MP simulations were funded by NASA (grant no. 80NSSC21K1731).
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
CDIAC | |
Australian Research Council | |
National Research Foundation of Korea | |
Computational and Information Systems Laboratory | |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory | |
National Center for Atmospheric Research | |
National Computational Infrastructure | |
ChinaFlux | |
MSIT | 2021H1D3A2A03097768 |
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek | 27020G07, KICH1.LWV02.20.004 |
U.S. Department of Energy | DE-AC05-100800OR22725 |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NA19NES4320002 |
National Science Foundation | 1852977 |
National Aeronautics and Space Administration | 80NSSC21K1731, 80NSSC18K0982 |
Climate Extremes | DE200100086, CE170100023 |