Abstract

Sources of differences between observations and simulations for a case study using the Noah land surface model-based High-Resolution Land Data Assimilation System (HRLDAS) are examined for sensible and latent heat fluxes H and LE, respectively; surface temperature Ts; and vertical temperature dif... Show moreSources of differences between observations and simulations for a case study using the Noah land surface model-based High-Resolution Land Data Assimilation System (HRLDAS) are examined for sensible and latent heat fluxes H and LE, respectively; surface temperature Ts; and vertical temperature difference T0 - Ts, where T0 is at 2 m. The observational data were collected on 29 May 2002, using the University of Wyoming King Air and four surface towers placed along a sparsely vegetated 60-km north-south flight track in the Oklahoma Panhandle. This day had nearly clear skies and a strong north-south soil-moisture gradient, with wet soils and widespread puddles at the south end of the track and drier soils to the north. Relative amplitudes of H and LE horizontal variation were estimated by taking the slope of the least squares best-fit straight line ΔLE/ΔH on plots of time-averaged LE as a function of time-averaged H for values along the track. It is argued that observed H and LE values departing significantly from their slope line are not associated with surface processes and, hence, need not be replicated by HRLDAS. Reasonable agreement between HRLDAS results and observed data was found only after adjusting the coefficient C in the Zilitinkevich equation relating the roughness lengths for momentum and heat in HRLDAS from its default value of 0.1 to a new value of 0.5. Using C = 0.1 and adjusting soil moisture to match the observed near-surface values increased horizontal variability in the right sense, raising LE and lowering H over the moist south end. However, both the magnitude of H and the amplitude of its horizontal variability relative to LE remained too large; adjustment of the green vegetation fraction had only a minor effect. With C = 0.5, model-input green vegetation fraction, and our best-estimate soil moisture, H, LE, ΔLE/ΔH, and T0 - Ts, were all close to observed values. The remaining inconsistency between model and observations-too high a value of H and too low a value of LE over the wet southern end of the track-could be due to HRLDAS ignoring the effect of open water. Neglecting the effect of moist soils on the albedo could also have contributed. Show less