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
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary
A Fortran–Python interface for integrating machine learning parameterization into earth system models
Tao Zhang, Cyril Morcrette, Meng Zhang, Wuyin Lin, Shaocheng Xie, Ye Liu, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Joana Rodrigues
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1917–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, 2025
Short summary
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
WRF-ELM v1.0: a regional climate model to study land–atmosphere interactions over heterogeneous land use regions
Huilin Huang, Yun Qian, Gautam Bisht, Jiali Wang, Tirthankar Chakraborty, Dalei Hao, Jianfeng Li, Travis Thurber, Balwinder Singh, Zhao Yang, Ye Liu, Pengfei Xue, William J. Sacks, Ethan Coon, and Robert Hetland
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1427–1443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, 2025
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.
Share