Evaluation of NARR and CLM3.5 outputs for surface water and energy budgets in the Mississippi River Basin
Evaluation of NARR and CLM3.5 outputs for surface water and energy budgets in the Mississippi River Basin
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2010jd014909
复制
发表时间：
2011-04
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sanjiv Kumar;V. Merwade
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sanjiv Kumar;V. Merwade
[1]北美区域再分析（NARR）和社区土地模型（CLM，版本3.5）的输出进行了分析，以表征在密西西比河流域（MRB）的地表水和能量收支。NARR和CLM的性能进行了评估，从16个AmeriFlux站点在MRB的能量通量观测。点尺度观测与气候模式网格单元输出的问题是通过分析空间变异的长期每月降水和温度观测从71个美国历史气候网络站在印第安纳州和伊利诺伊州。模型输出的能力，以捕捉总径流的空间和时间变异性也进行了评估。与MRB中11个AmeriFlux站点的平均值相比，NARR在入射太阳辐射（24%），感热通量（27%）和潜热通量（59%）方面显示出更高的偏差（与CLM相比），而CLM在入射太阳辐射（0.5%），感热通量（-2%）和潜热通量（11%）方面显示出较小的偏差（与NARR相比）。作物区感热通量的季节变化呈双峰型，NARR观测到了这一特征，而CLM观测到的感热通量季节变化没有双峰型。基于25年（1980-2004年）的月气候在MRB，NARR有11%的能量平衡闭合误差（潜热+感热+地面热通量= 1.11净辐射）和12%的水平衡闭合误差（蒸散+径流= 1.12降水），而CLM没有水和能量平衡闭合误差，主要是由于模式设计。根据1988-1999年MRB、NARR和CLM的数据，观测到的年平均径流量为237 mm/yr，与此相比，年平均径流量分别为89 mm/yr和281 mm/yr。总体而言，CLM提供了相对更好的表征地表水和能量通量的MRB相比，NARR。
[1] The North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) and Community Land Model (CLM, version 3.5) outputs are analyzed to characterize the surface water and energy budgets in the Mississippi River Basin (MRB). NARR and CLM performance are evaluated with reference to energy flux observations from 16 AmeriFlux sites in MRB. The issue of point-scale observations versus climate model grid cell outputs is addressed by analyzing the spatial variability in long-term monthly precipitation and temperature observations from 71 United States Historical Climatology Network stations in Indiana and Illinois. The model outputs are also evaluated for their ability to capture spatial and temporal variability in total runoff. Compared to average values at 11 AmeriFlux sites in MRB, NARR show higher biases (compared to CLM) in incoming solar radiation (24%), sensible heat flux (27%), and latent heat flux (59%), whereas CLM show smaller biases (compared to NARR) in incoming solar radiation (0.5%), sensible heat flux (−2%), and latent heat flux (11%). Seasonal cycle of observed sensible heat flux in the crop region shows two peaks (bimodal pattern), which is captured by NARR, but CLM do not show any bimodal pattern. Based on 25 years (1980–2004) monthly climatology in MRB, NARR has 11% energy balance closing error (latent + sensible + ground heat flux = 1.11 net radiation) and 12% water balance closing error (evapotranspiration + runoff = 1.12 precipitation), whereas CLM does not have water and energy balance closing errors, primarily due to model design. In comparison to the observed mean annual runoff of 237 mm/yr based on 1988–1999 data in MRB, NARR and CLM mean annual runoff values are 89 mm/yr and 281 mm/yr, respectively. Overall, CLM provides relatively better characterization of surface water and energy fluxes in the MRB compared to NARR.