Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Monthly Simulation of Surface Layer Fluxes and Soil Properties during FIFE

Michael G. Bosilovich Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Search for other papers by Michael G. Bosilovich in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
Wen-yih Sun Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Search for other papers by Wen-yih Sun in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Apr 1998
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055<1170:MSOSLF>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1170–1184
Restricted access

Abstract

Global change and regional climate experiments with atmospheric numerical models rely on the parameterization of the surface boundary in order to evaluate impact on society and agriculture. In this paper, several surface modeling strategies have been examined in order to test their ability to simulate for a period of one month, and hence, their impact on short-term and regional climate modeling. The interaction between vegetation and soil models is also discussed. The resolution of a multiple-level soil model, the method of computing moisture availability, the Force–Restore Method, and vegetation parameterization were studied by comparing model-simulated soil temperature, soil moisture, and surface energy budget with observations and intercomparison of the simulations.

The increase of model soil resolution improved both the simulation of daytime ground heat flux and latent heat. Evaporation from the soil surface with more coarse resolution soil was larger than the higher resolution simulation, but transpiration and the simulation of soil water were similar for each case. The Alpha method of moisture availability allowed less soil evaporation under stressed conditions than the Beta method. The soil water became larger than the observations, and more transpiration occurred. The Force–Restore Method simulations produced reasonable results, when coupled with the vegetation model. Eliminating the vegetation model from several of the previous cases, however, produced significant variability between different soil models. It is possible that this variability could affect long-term GCM sensitivity simulations.

* Current affiliation: Universities Space Research Association, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.

Corresponding author address: Michael G. Bosilovich, Universities Space Research Association, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

Abstract

Global change and regional climate experiments with atmospheric numerical models rely on the parameterization of the surface boundary in order to evaluate impact on society and agriculture. In this paper, several surface modeling strategies have been examined in order to test their ability to simulate for a period of one month, and hence, their impact on short-term and regional climate modeling. The interaction between vegetation and soil models is also discussed. The resolution of a multiple-level soil model, the method of computing moisture availability, the Force–Restore Method, and vegetation parameterization were studied by comparing model-simulated soil temperature, soil moisture, and surface energy budget with observations and intercomparison of the simulations.

The increase of model soil resolution improved both the simulation of daytime ground heat flux and latent heat. Evaporation from the soil surface with more coarse resolution soil was larger than the higher resolution simulation, but transpiration and the simulation of soil water were similar for each case. The Alpha method of moisture availability allowed less soil evaporation under stressed conditions than the Beta method. The soil water became larger than the observations, and more transpiration occurred. The Force–Restore Method simulations produced reasonable results, when coupled with the vegetation model. Eliminating the vegetation model from several of the previous cases, however, produced significant variability between different soil models. It is possible that this variability could affect long-term GCM sensitivity simulations.

* Current affiliation: Universities Space Research Association, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.

Corresponding author address: Michael G. Bosilovich, Universities Space Research Association, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

Save
Cover Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

  • Beljaars, A. C. M., P. Viterbo, M. J. Miller, and A. K. Betts, 1996: The anomalous rainfall over the United States during July 1993:Sensitivity to land surface parameterizations and soil moisture anomalies. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 362–383.

  • Betts, A. K., and J. H. Ball, 1998: FIFE surface climate and site-averaged data set: 1987–1989. J. Atmos. Sci.,55, 1091–1108.

  • ——, ——, and A. C. M. Beljaars, 1993: Comparison between the land surface response of the ECMWF model and the FIFE 1987 data. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,119, 975–1001.

  • Bhumralkar, C. M., 1975: Numerical experiments on the computation of ground surface temperature in an atmospheric general circulation model. J. Appl. Meteor.,14, 1246–1258.

  • Blackadar, A. K., 1976: Modeling the nocturnal boundary layer. Proc. Third Symp. on Atmospheric Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Quality, Raleigh, NC, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 46–49.

  • Bosilovich, M. G., and W.-Y. Sun, 1995: Formulation and verification of a land surface parameterization for atmospheric models. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,73, 321–341.

  • Braud, I., J. Noilhan, P. Bessemoulin, P. Mascart, R. Haverkamp, and M. Vauclin, 1993: Bare-ground surface heat and water exchanges under dry conditions: Observations and parameterization. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,66, 173–200.

  • Businger, J. A., J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and E. F. Bradley, 1971: Flux profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,28, 181–189.

  • Clapp, R. B., and G. M. Hornberger, 1978: Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resour. Res.,14, 601–604.

  • Deardorff, J. W., 1977: A parameterization of the ground surface moisture content for use in atmospheric prediction models. J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 1182–1185.

  • ——, 1978: Efficient prediction of ground surface temperature and moisture with inclusion of a layer of vegetation. J. Geophys. Res.,83, 1889–1903.

  • Dekić, L., D. T. Mihailović, and B. Rajković, 1995: A study of the sensitivity of bare soil evaporation schemes to soil wetness, using the coupled soil moisture and surface temperature prediction model, BARESOIL. Meteor. Atmos. Phys.,55, 101–112.

  • Dickinson, R. E., 1984: Modeling evapotranspiration for three-dimensional global climate models. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Monogr., No. 29, 58–72.

  • ——, 1988: The force restore model for surface temperatures and its generalizations. J. Climate,1, 1086–1097.

  • Field, R., L. Fritschen, E. Kanemasu, E. Smith, J. Stewart, S. Verma, and W. Kustas, 1992: Calibration, comparison and correction of the net radiation instruments used during FIFE. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18681–18695.

  • Fritschen, L., P. Qian, E. Kanemasu, D. Nie, E. Smith, J. Stewart, S. Verma, and M. Wesely, 1992: Comparisons of surface flux measurement systems used in FIFE 1989. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18697–18713.

  • Garrat, J. R., 1993: Sensitivity of climate simulations to land surface and atmospheric boundary layer treatments—A review. J. Climate,6, 419–449.

  • Giorgi, F., G. T. Bates, and S. J. Nieman, 1992: Simulation of thearid climate of the southern great basin using a regional climate model. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,73, 1807–1822.

  • Jacquemin, B., and J. Noilhan, 1990: Sensitivity study and validation of a land surface parameterization using the HAPEX-MOBILHY data set. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,52, 93–134.

  • Kanemasu, E., S. Verma, E. Smith, L. Fritschen, M. Wesely, R. Field, P. Kustas, H. Weaver, J. Stewart, R. Gurney, G. Panin, and J. Moncrieff, 1992: Surface flux measurements in FIFE: An overview. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18547–18555.

  • Kondo, J., N. Saigusa, and T. Sato, 1992: A model and experimental study of evaporation from bare soil surfaces. J. Appl. Meteor.,31, 304–312.

  • Mahfouf, J. F., and J. Noilhan, 1991: Comparative study of various formulations of evaporation from bare soil using in situ data. J. Appl. Meteor.,30, 1354–1365.

  • Manabe, S., 1969: The atmospheric circulation and the hydrology of the earth’s surface. Mon. Wea. Rev.,97, 739–774.

  • Mihailović, D., H. A. R. de Bruin, M. Jeftic, and A. van Dijken, 1992: A study of the sensitivity of land surface parameterizations to the inclusion of different fractional covers and soil textures. J. Appl. Meteor.,31, 1477–1487.

  • Noilhan, J., and S. Planton, 1989: A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 536–549.

  • Paegle, J., K. C. Mo, and J. Nogués-Paegle, 1996: Dependance of simulated precipitation on surface evaporation during the 1993 United States summer floods. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 345–361.

  • Philip, J. R., 1957: Evaporation, and moisture and heat fields in the soil. J. Meteor.,14, 354–366.

  • Savijärvi, H., 1992: On surface temperature and moisture prediction in atmospheric models. Beitr. Phys. Atmos.,65, 281–292.

  • Sellers, P. J., and J. L. Dorman, 1987: Testing the Simple Biosphere Model (SiB) using point micrometeorological and biophysical data. J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,26, 622–651.

  • ——, Y. Mintz, Y. Sud, and A. Dalcher, 1986: The design of a SimpleBiosphere Model (SiB) for use within general circulation models. J. Atmos. Sci.,43, 505–531.

  • ——, F. G. Hall, G. Asrar, D. E. Strebel, and R. E. Murphy, 1988: The First ISLSCP Field Experiment (FIFE). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,69, 22–27.

  • Siebert, J., U. Sievers, and W. Zdunkowski, 1992: A one-dimensional simulation of the interaction between land surface processes and the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor.59, 1–34.

  • Smith, E., W. Crosson, and B. Tanner, 1992: Estimation of surface heat and moisture fluxes over a prairie grassland. 1: In situ energy budget measurements incorporating a cooled mirror dew point hygrometer. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18557–18582.

  • ——, H. Cooper, W. Crosson, and W. Heng-yi, 1993: Estimation of surface heat and moisture fluxes over a prairie grassland. 3: Design of a hybrid physical/remote sensing biosphere model. J. Geophys. Res.,98(D3), 4951–4978.

  • Strebel, D. E., D. R. Landis, K. F. Huemmrich, and B. W. Meeson, 1994: Collected Data of the First ISLSCP Field Experiment. Vol. 1, Surface Observations and Non Image Data Sets. NASA, CD-ROM.

  • Sun, W.-Y., and J.-D. Chern, 1993: Diurnal variation of lee vortices in Taiwan and surrounding area. J. Atmos. Sci.,50, 3404–3430.

  • ——, and M. G. Bosilovich, 1996: Planetary boundary and surface layer sensitivity to land surface parameters. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,77, 353–378.

  • Ungar, S. G., R. Layman, J. E. Campbell, J. Walsh, and H. J. McKim, 1992: Determination of soil moisture distribution from impedance and gravimetric measurements. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18969–18977.

  • Wang, J., 1992: An overview of the measurements of soil moisture and modeling of moisture flux in FIFE. J. Geophys. Res.,97(D17), 18955–18959.

  • Wetzel, P. J., and J. T. Chang, 1988: Evapotranspiration from a non-uniform surface: A first approach for short term numerical weather prediction. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 600–621.

  • Yee, S. Y. K., 1988: The Force Restore Method revisited. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,43, 85–90.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 377 186 103
PDF Downloads 69 26 1