Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-195-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-195-2018
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
17 Jan 2018
Methods for assessment of models |  | 17 Jan 2018

On the predictability of land surface fluxes from meteorological variables

Ned Haughton, Gab Abramowitz, and Andy J. Pitman

Related authors

Does predictability of fluxes vary between FLUXNET sites?
Ned Haughton, Gab Abramowitz, Martin G. De Kauwe, and Andy J. Pitman
Biogeosciences, 15, 4495–4513, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4495-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4495-2018, 2018
Short summary
FluxnetLSM R package (v1.0): a community tool for processing FLUXNET data for use in land surface modelling
Anna M. Ukkola, Ned Haughton, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, and Andy J. Pitman
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3379–3390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3379-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3379-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Impacts of spatial heterogeneity of anthropogenic aerosol emissions in a regionally refined global aerosol–climate model
Taufiq Hassan, Kai Zhang, Jianfeng Li, Balwinder Singh, Shixuan Zhang, Hailong Wang, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3507–3532, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024, 2024
Short summary
cfr (v2024.1.26): a Python package for climate field reconstruction
Feng Zhu, Julien Emile-Geay, Gregory J. Hakim, Dominique Guillot, Deborah Khider, Robert Tardif, and Walter A. Perkins
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3409–3431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024, 2024
Short summary
NEWTS1.0: Numerical model of coastal Erosion by Waves and Transgressive Scarps
Rose V. Palermo, J. Taylor Perron, Jason M. Soderblom, Samuel P. D. Birch, Alexander G. Hayes, and Andrew D. Ashton
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3433–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of isoprene emissions from the coupled model SURFEX–MEGANv2.1
Safae Oumami, Joaquim Arteta, Vincent Guidard, Pierre Tulet, and Paul David Hamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3385–3408, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024, 2024
Short summary
A comprehensive Earth system model (AWI-ESM2.1) with interactive icebergs: effects on surface and deep-ocean characteristics
Lars Ackermann, Thomas Rackow, Kai Himstedt, Paul Gierz, Gregor Knorr, and Gerrit Lohmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3279–3301, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Abramowitz, G.: Calibration, compensating errors and data-based realism in LSMs, Presentation, 2013. a
Abramowitz, G., Leuning, R., Clark, M., and Pitman, A. J.: Evaluating the performance of land surface models, 21, 5468–5481, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2378.1, 2010. a
Batty, M. and Torrens, P. M.: Modeling complexity: the limits to prediction, Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr., https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.1035, 2001. a, b
Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Johnson, H. R., Pitman, A. J., Balsamo, G., Boone, A., Cuntz, M., Decharme, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Dong, J., Ek, M. B., Guo, Z., Haverd, V., van den Hurk, B. J. J., Nearing, G. S., Pak, B., Peters-Lidard, C. D., Santan, J. S., Stevens, L. E., and Vuichard, N.: The plumbing of land surface models: benchmarking model performance, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1425–1442, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0158.1, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae
Boone, A., Decharme, B., Guichard, F., de Rosnay, P., Balsamo, G., Beljaars, A., Chopin, F., Orgeval, T., Polcher, J., Delire, C., Ducharne, A., Gascoin, S., Grippa, M., Jarlan, L., Kergoat, L., Mougin, E., Gusev, Y., Nasonova, O., Harris, P., Taylor, C., Norgaard, A., Sandholt, I., Ottlé, C., Poccard-Leclercq, I., Saux-Picart, S., and Xue, Y.: The AMMA Land Surface Model Intercomparison Project (ALMIP), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1865–1880, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2786.1, 2009. a
Download
Short summary
Previous studies indicate that fluxes of heat, water, and carbon between the land surface and atmosphere are substantially more predictable than the performance of the current crop of land surface models would indicate. This study uses simple empirical models to estimate the amount of useful information in meteorological forcings that is available for predicting land surface fluxes. These models can be used as benchmarks for land surface models and may help identify areas ripe for improvement.