Search Results

You are looking at 21 - 22 of 22 items for

  • Author or Editor: Qingyun Duan x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Graeme Stephens
,
Jan Polcher
,
Xubin Zeng
,
Peter van Oevelen
,
Germán Poveda
,
Michael Bosilovich
,
Myoung-Hwan Ahn
,
Gianpaolo Balsamo
,
Qingyun Duan
,
Gabriele Hegerl
,
Christian Jakob
,
Benjamin Lamptey
,
Ruby Leung
,
Maria Piles
,
Zhongbo Su
,
Paul Dirmeyer
,
Kirsten L. Findell
,
Anne Verhoef
,
Michael Ek
,
Tristan L’Ecuyer
,
Rémy Roca
,
Ali Nazemi
,
Francina Dominguez
,
Daniel Klocke
, and
Sandrine Bony

Abstract

The Global Energy and Water Cycle Exchanges (GEWEX) project was created more than 30 years ago within the framework of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The aim of this initiative was to address major gaps in our understanding of Earth’s energy and water cycles given a lack of information about the basic fluxes and associated reservoirs of these cycles. GEWEX sought to acquire and set standards for climatological data on variables essential for quantifying water and energy fluxes and for closing budgets at the regional and global scales. In so doing, GEWEX activities led to a greatly improved understanding of processes and our ability to predict them. Such understanding was viewed then, as it remains today, essential for advancing weather and climate prediction from global to regional scales. GEWEX has also demonstrated over time the importance of a wider engagement of different communities and the necessity of international collaboration for making progress on understanding and on the monitoring of the changes in the energy and water cycles under ever increasing human pressures. This paper reflects on the first 30 years of evolution and progress that has occurred within GEWEX. This evolution is presented in terms of three main phases of activity. Progress toward the main goals of GEWEX is highlighted by calling out a few achievements from each phase. A vision of the path forward for the coming decade, including the goals of GEWEX for the future, are also described.

Open access
Lifeng Luo
,
Alan Robock
,
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov
,
C. Adam Schlosser
,
Andrew G. Slater
,
Aaron Boone
,
Pierre Etchevers
,
Florence Habets
,
Joel Noilhan
,
Harald Braden
,
Peter Cox
,
Patricia de Rosnay
,
Robert E. Dickinson
,
Yongjiu Dai
,
Qing-Cun Zeng
,
Qingyun Duan
,
John Schaake
,
Ann Henderson-Sellers
,
Nicola Gedney
,
Yevgeniy M. Gusev
,
Olga N. Nasonova
,
Jinwon Kim
,
Eva Kowalczyk
,
Kenneth Mitchell
,
Andrew J. Pitman
,
Andrey B. Shmakin
,
Tatiana G. Smirnova
,
Peter Wetzel
,
Yongkang Xue
, and
Zong-Liang Yang

Abstract

The Project for Intercomparison of Land-Surface Parameterization Schemes phase 2(d) experiment at Valdai, Russia, offers a unique opportunity to evaluate land surface schemes, especially snow and frozen soil parameterizations. Here, the ability of the 21 schemes that participated in the experiment to correctly simulate the thermal and hydrological properties of the soil on several different timescales was examined. Using observed vertical profiles of soil temperature and soil moisture, the impact of frozen soil schemes in the land surface models on the soil temperature and soil moisture simulations was evaluated.

It was found that when soil-water freezing is explicitly included in a model, it improves the simulation of soil temperature and its variability at seasonal and interannual scales. Although change of thermal conductivity of the soil also affects soil temperature simulation, this effect is rather weak. The impact of frozen soil on soil moisture is inconclusive in this experiment due to the particular climate at Valdai, where the top 1 m of soil is very close to saturation during winter and the range for soil moisture changes at the time of snowmelt is very limited. The results also imply that inclusion of explicit snow processes in the models would contribute to substantially improved simulations. More sophisticated snow models based on snow physics tend to produce better snow simulations, especially of snow ablation. Hysteresis of snow-cover fraction as a function of snow depth is observed at the catchment but not in any of the models.

Full access