Abstract

The relationship between terrestrial water storage (TWS) and atmospheric processes has important implications for predictability of climatic extremes and projection of future climate change. In places where moisture availability limits evapotranspiration (ET), variability in TWS has the potential... Show moreThe relationship between terrestrial water storage (TWS) and atmospheric processes has important implications for predictability of climatic extremes and projection of future climate change. In places where moisture availability limits evapotranspiration (ET), variability in TWS has the potential to influence surface energy fluxes and atmospheric conditions. Where atmospheric conditions, in turn, influence moisture availability, a full feedback loop exists. Here we developed a novel approach for measuring the strength of both components of this feedback loop, i.e., the forcing of the atmosphere by variability in TWS and the response of TWS to atmospheric variability, using satellite observations of TWS, precipitation, solar radiation, and vapor pressure deficit during 2002-2014. Our approach defines metrics to quantify the relationship between TWS anomalies and climate globally on a seasonal to interannual timescale. Metrics derived from the satellite data were used to evaluate the strength of the feedback loop in 38 members of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble (LENS) and in six models that contributed simulations to phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). We found that both forcing and response limbs of the feedback loop in LENS were stronger than in the satellite observations in tropical and temperate regions. Feedbacks in the selected CMIP5 models were not as strong as those found in LENS, but were still generally stronger than those estimated from the satellite measurements. Consistent with previous studies conducted across different spatial and temporal scales, our analysis suggests that models may overestimate the strength of the feedbacks between the land surface and the atmosphere. We describe several possible mechanisms that may contribute to this bias, and discuss pathways through which models may overestimate ET or overestimate the sensitivity of ET to TWS. Show less