Validation of the NOAH-OSU land surface model using surface flux measurements in Oklahoma

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Volumn 107, Issue 20, 2002, Pages ACL-3-1-ACL-3-18

  Sridhar, V ^a   Elliott, Ronald L ^b   Chen, Fei ^c   Brotzge, Jerald A ^d  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

^b OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^d Ctr for Anal/Prediction of Storms   (United States)

Author keywords

1615 Global change: Biogeochemical processes (4805); 1818 Hydrology: Evapotranspiration; 1833 Hydrology: Hydroclimatology; 1878 Hydrology: Water energy interactions; 3322 Meteorology and atmospheric dynamics: Land atmosphere interactions

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HEAT FLUX; HEAT RADIATION; HYDROLOGY; INTERFACIAL ENERGY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; METEOROLOGY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VEGETATION;

HEAT FLUX; LAND SURFACE; MODELING; RADIATION EXPOSURE; VEGETATION;

NORTH AMERICA; OKLAHOMA [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

EID: 36448981828     PISSN: 01480227     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2001JD001306     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Albertson, J. D., W. P. Kustas, and T. M. Scanlon, Large-eddy simulation over heterogeneous terrain with remotely sensed land surface conditions, Water Resour. Res., 37(7), 1939-1953, 2001.
2. Avissar, R., Conceptual aspects of a statistical dynamical approach to represent landscape subgrid-scale heterogeneities in atmospheric models, J. Geophys. Res., 97(D3), 2729-2742, 1992.
3. Avissar, R., and R. A. Pielke, A parameterization of heterogeneous land surfaces for atmospheric numerical models and its impact on regional meteorology, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 2113-2136, 1989.
4. Benjamin, S. G., and T. N. Carlson, Some effects of surface heating and topography on the regional severe storm environment, I, Three-dimensional simulations, Mon. Weather Rev., 114, 307-329, 1986.
5. Betts, A. K., J. H. Ball, A. C. M. Beljaars, M. J. Miller, and P. Viterbo, The land-surface-atmosphere interaction: A review based on observational and global modelling perspectives, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7209-7225, 1996.
6. Betts, A. K., F. Chen, K. Mitchell, and Z. I. Janjic, Assessment of the land surface and boundary layer models in two operational versions of the NCEP Eta model using FIFE data, Mon. Weather Rev., 125, 2896-2916, 1997.
7. Bindlish, R., W. P. Kustas, A. N. French, G. R. Diak, and J. R. Mecikalski, Influence of near-surface soil moisture on regional scale heat fluxes: Model results using microwave remote sensing data from SGP97, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 39(8), 1719-1728, 2001.
8. Braud, I., Spatial variability of surface properties and estimation of surface fluxes of a savannah, Agric. For. Meteorol., 89, 15-44, 1998.
9. Brock, F. V., K. C. Crawford, R. L. Elliott, G. W. Cuperus, S. J. Stadler, H. L. Johnson, and M. D. Eilts, The Oklahoma Mesonet: A technical overview, J. Atmos. Oceanic. Technol., 12(1), 5-19, 1995.
10. Brotzge, J. A., Closure of the surface energy budget, Ph.D. dissertation, 208 pp., Univ. of Okla., Norman, 2000.
11. Brotzge, J. A., S. J. Richardson, K. C. Crawford, T. W. Horst, F. V. Brock, K. S. Humes, Z. Sorbjan, and R. L. Elliott, The Oklahoma Atmospheric Surface-layer Instrumentation System (OASIS) Project, paper presented at Thirteenth Conference on Boundary Layers and Turbulence, Am. Meteorol. Soc., Dallas, Tex., Jan. 10-15, 1999.
12. Brutsaert, W., On a derivable formula for long-wave radiation from clear skies, Water Resour. Res., 11(5), 742-744, 1975.
13. Carlson, T. N., and D. A. Ripley, On the relation between NDVI, fractional vegetation cover and leaf area index, Remote Sens. Environ., 62, 241-252, 1997.
14. Chen, D., and W. Brutsaert, Diagnostics of land surface spatial variability and water vapor flux, Water Resour. Res., 100(012), 25,595-25,606, 1995.
15. Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, Coupling an advanced land-surface/hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system, part I, Model implementation and sensitivity, Mon. Weather Rev., 129, 569-585, 2001.
16. Chen, F., and K. Mitchell, Using the GEWEX/ISLSCP forcing data to simulate global soil moisture fields and hydrological cycle for 1987-1988, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 77(1B), 167-182, 1999.
17. Chen, F., K. Mitchell, J. Schaake, Y. Xue, H. Pan, V. Koren, Q. Y. Duan, M. Ek, and A. Betts, Modeling of land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7251-7268, 1996.
18. Chen, F., Z. I. Janjic, and K. Mitchell, Impact of atmospheric surface-layer parameterization in the new land surface scheme of the NCEP mesoscale Eta numerical model, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 85, 391-421, 1997.
19. Choudhury, B. J., N. U. Ahmed, S. B. Idso, R. J. Reginato, and C. S. T. Daughtry, Relations between evaporation coefficients and vegetation indices studied by model simulations, Remote Sens. Environ., 50, 1-17, 1994.
20. Crawford, T. M., and H. B. Bluestein, An operational, diagnostic surface energy budget model, J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1196-1217, 2000.
21. Crawford, T. M., D. J. Stensrud, T. N. Carlson, and W. J. Capehart, Using a soil hydrology model to obtain regionally averaged soil moisture values, J. Hydrometeorol., 1(4), 353-363, 2000.
22. Crawford, T. M., D. J. Stensrud, F. Mora, J. W. Merchant, and P. J. Wetzel, Value of incorporating satellite-derived land cover data in MM5/PLACE for simulating surface temperatures, J. Hydrometeorol., 2(5), 453-468, 2001.
23. Cuenca, R. H., M. Ek, and L. Mahrt, Impact of soil water property parameterization on atmospheric boundary-layer simulation, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7269-7277, 1996.
24. Davis, C., T. Warner, E. Astling, and J. Bowers, Development and application of an operational, relocatable, meso-gamma-scale weather analysis and forecasting system, Tellus, Ser. A, 51, 710-727, 1999.
25. Dirmeyer, P. A., Assessing GCM sensitivity to soil wetness using GSWP data, J Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 77(1B), 367-385, 1999.
26. Dirmeyer, P. A., F. J. Zeng, A. Ducharne, J. C. Morril, and R. D. Koster, The sensitivity of surface fluxes to soil water content in three land surface schemes, J. Hydrometeorol., 1, 121-134, 2000.
27. Dudhia, J., A nonhydrostatic version of the Penn State NCAR Mesoscale Model - Validation tests and simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold-front, Mon. Weather Rev., 121(5), 1493-1513, 1993.
28. Eagleson, P. S., Climate, soil and vegetation, I, Introduction to water balance dynamics, Water Resour. Res., 14(5), 705-712, 1978.
29. Eagleson, P. S., The emergence of global-scale hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 22(9), 6S-14S, 1986.
30. Ek, M., and L. Mahrt, OSU 1-D PEL model user's guide. Dep. of Atmos. Sci., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, 1991.
31. Elliott, R. L., F. V. Brock, M. L. Stone, and S. L. Harp, Configuration decisions for an automated weather station network, Appl. Eng. Agric., 10(1), 45-51, 1994.
32. Entekhabi, D., I. Rodriguez-Iturbe, and F. Castelli, Mutual interaction of soil moisture state and atmospheric processes, J. Hydrol., 184, 3-17, 1996.
33. Fennessy, M. J., and J. Shukla, Impact of initial soil wetness on seasonal atmospheric prediction, J. Clim., 12, 3167-3180, 1999.
34. Gallo, K., D. Tarpley, K. Mitchell, I. Csiszar, T. Owen, and B. Reed, Monthly fractional green vegetation cover associated with land cover classes of the conterminous USA, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(10), 2089-2092, 2001.
35. Gillies, R. R., and T. N. Carlson, Thermal remote sensing of surface soil water content with partial vegetation cover for incorporation into climate models, J. Appl. Meteorol., 34, 745-756, 1995.
36. Grell, G., J. Dudhia, and D. Stauffer, A description of the fifth generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5), Tech. Note NCAR/TN-398+STR, 117 pp., NCAR, Boulder, Colo., 1994.
37. Gutman, G., and A. Ignatov, Derivation of green vegetation fraction from NOAA/AVHRR for use in numerical weather prediction models, Int. J. Remote Sens., 19(8), 1533-1543, 1998.
38. Hanks, R. J., and G. L. Aschcroft, Applied Soil Physics, 159 pp., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
39. Henderson-Sellers, A., Soil moisture: A critical focus for global change studies, Global Planet. Change, 13, 3-9, 1996.
40. Hipps, L. E., E. Swiatek, and W. P. Kustas, Interactions between regional fluxes and the atmospheric boundary layer over a heterogeneous watershed, Water Resour. Res., 30(5), 1387-1392, 1994.
41. Ichii, K., Y. Matsui, Y. Yamaguchi, and K. Ogawa, Comparison of global net primary production trends obtained from satellite-based normalized difference vegetation index and carbon cycle model, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(2), 351-363, 2001.
42. Jacquemin, B., and J. Noilhan, Sensitivity study and validation of a land surface parameterization using the HAPEX-MOBILHY dataset, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 52, 93-134, 1990.
43. Kalnay, E., and M. Kanamitsu, Time schemes for strongly nonlinear damping equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 116, 1945-1958, 1988.
44. Koren, V., J. Schaake, K. Mitchell, Q.-Y. Duan, and F. Chen, A parameterization of snowpack and frozen ground intended for NCEP weather and climate model, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19,569-19,585, 1999.
45. Kustas, W. P., T. J. Jackson, A. N. French, and J. I. MacPherson, Verification of patch- and regional-scale energy balance estimates derived from microwave and optical remote sensing during SGP97, J. Hydrometeorol., 2(3), 254-273, 2001.
46. Lanicci, J. M., T. N. Carlson, and T. T. Warner, Sensitivity of the great plains severe-storm environment to soil-moisture distribution, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 2660-2673, 1987.
47. Mahrt, L., and K. Ek, The influence of atmospheric stability on potential evaporation, J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 23, 222-234, 1984.
48. Mahrt, L., and H. L. Pan, A two-layer model of soil hydrology, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 29, 1-20, 1984.
49. Marshall, C. H., Jr., Evaluation of the new land-surface and planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes in the NCEP Mesoscale Eta model using Oklahoma Mesonet observations, M.S. thesis, 176 pp, Univ. of Okla., Norman, 1998.
50. Mass, C. F., and Y. H. Kuo, Regional real-time numerical weather prediction: Current status and future potential, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 253-263, 1998.
51. Maurer, E. P., G. M. O'Donnell, D. P. Lettenmaier, and J. O. Roads, Evaluation of NCEP/NCAR reanalysis water and energy budgets using macroscale hydrologic model simulations, land surface hydrology, meteorology, and climate: Observations and modeling, Water Sci. Appl., 3, 137-158, 2001.
52. McCumber, M. C., and R. A. Pielke, Simulation of the effects of surface fluxes of heat and moisture in a mesoscale numerical model soil layer, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 9929-9938, 1981.
53. Mintz, Y., The sensitivity of numerically simulated climates to land surface boundary conditions, paper presented at JSC Study Conference on Land Surface Processes in Atmospheric GCM, WMO/ICSU Joint Sci. Comm., Greenbelt, MD, 1981.
54. Mintz, Y., The sensitivity of numerically simulated climates to land-surface boundary conditions, in Global Climate, edited by J. H. Houghton, pp. 79-105, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1984.
55. Noilhan, J., and S. Planton, A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 536-549, 1989.
56. Oglesby, R. J., Springtime soil moisture variability, and North American drought as simulated by the NCAR Community Climate Model I, J. Clim., 4, 890-897, 1991.
57. Pan, H.-L., and L. Mahrt, Interaction between soil hydrology and boundary-layer development, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 38, 185-202, 1987.
58. Peters-Lidard, C. D., E. Blackburn, E. X. Liang, and E. F. Wood, The effect of soil thermal conductivity parameterization on surface energy fluxes and temperatures, J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1209-1224, 1998.
59. Pielke, R. A., Influence on severe storm development of irrigated land, Natl. Weather Dig., 24(2), 16-17, 1989.
60. Robock, A., C. A. Schlosser, K. Ya. Vinnikov, N. A. Speranskaya, and J. K. Entin, Evaluation of AMIP soil moisture simulations, Global Planet. Change, 19, 181-208, 1998.
61. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Ecohydrology: A hydrologic perspective of climate-soil-vegetation dynamics, Water Resour. Res., 36(1), 3-9, 2000.
62. Rowntree, P. R., Sensitivity of GCM to land surface processes, in Workshop Proceedings: Intercomparison of Large Scale Models for Extended Range Forecasts. ECMWF, pp. 225-261, Eur. Cent. for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 1983.
63. Schaake, J. C., V. I. Koren, Q. Y. Duan, K. Mitchell, and F. Chen, A simple water balance model (SWB) for estimating runoff at different spatial and temporal scales, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7461-7475, 1996.
64. 2) surface-atmosphere heat and moisture fluxes, J. Hydrol., 190, 269-301, 1997.
65. Silberstein, R. P., M. Sivapalan, and A. Wyllie, On the validation of a coupled water and energy balance model at small catchment scales, J. Hydrol., 220, 149-168, 1999.
66. Sridhar, V., Land surface modeling of energy-balance components: Model validation and scaling effects, Ph.D. dissertation, 192 pp., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, 2001.
67. Sridhar, V., and R. L. Elliott, On the development of a simple downwelling longwave radiation scheme, Agric. For. Meteorol., 112, 237-243, 2002.
68. Viterbo, P., and A. C. Beljaars, An improved land surface parameterization scheme in the ECMWF model and its validation, J. Clim., 8, 2716-2748, 1995.
69. Warner, T. T., D. F. Kibler, and R. L. Steinhart, Separate and coupled testing of meteorological and hydrological forecast models for the Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania, J. Appl. Meteorol., 30, 1521-1533, 1991.
70. Wylie, B. K., D. J. Meyer, L. L. Tieszen, and S. Mannel, Satellite mapping of surface biophysical parameters at the biome scale over the North American grasslands - A case study, Remote Sens. Environ., 79, 266-278, 2002.
71. Yan, H., and R. A. Anthes, The effect of variations in surface moisture on mesoscale circulations, Mon. Weather Rev., 116, 192-208, 1988.
72. Yucel, I., W. J. Shuttleworth, J. Washburne, and F. Chen, Evaluating NCEP Eta model derived data against observations, Mon. Weather Rev., 126, 1977-1991, 1998.